BTW, I'm pulling the Democratic Lever this Nov. Got a problem with that?

[LynneSin]

You can post all your reasons as to why I shouldn't vote straight democrat (which includes my Lieberman & Torture supporting democratic senator Tom Carper) and I'll still vote straight democrat.

Democrats have pissed me off to no end but I still would rather they have control of the floor legislation and the committees than the republicans. I'll remember what Tom Carper did in 2006 and fight harder to find a replacement for him in 2012. But asking me to vote 3rd Party or just not voting at all goes against everything I stand for and everything I hope that one day we can do.

Enabling the Republican party is NOT an option for me. It so sucks that our party system allows for just two parties to have any success but less than two months before the election is not the time to try and make some change.

I'm pulling the big "D" lever. Got a problem with it? Don't bug me about it!

[NMDemDist2]

1. me too Lynne. Bingaman ain't the greatest Dem, but he's a Dem

and that's good enough for me!

[rodeodance]

2. go for it. You are right--it is committee makeup that are killing us

[brentspeak]

3. K & R

:kick:

[bowens43]

4. Me too. Only a fool would do otherwise.

[madinmaryland]

5. Thanks for saying this!

I will always vote straight Dem. I have seen the damage the pubs have reeked and want it to end now!

Even if Lieberman had won the primary, I would have voted for him, though I would be holding my nose.

[MrsT]

6. Why are there so many on DU that want to discourage us from voting

for democrats? That seems like a weird thing to do at a place called democraticunderground.com

[LynneSin]

8. I haven't the slightest clue

:shrug:

BTW - Welcome to DU :hi:

[ProudDad]

81. How long have you been posting here?

there is some history to this place...

When I joined, it was a refuge for the many good left-leaning folks who were disgusted at the way the dems (Gore goaded by the DLC) ran such a shitty campaign in 2000 and then folded under the repuke theft of the election.

Thus the name UNDERGROUND, which reflected the embarrassment of being a democrat.

[blondeatlast]

111. Boy is that some serious revisionist history.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

148. That is for sure!

[brentspeak]

13. This explains part of the reason:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2530309&mesg_id=2530309

[skids]

31. K&R for the future Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

146. I love the sound of those four words.

B-)

NGU.

[desi]

24. Stating the obvious reason may get you banned

so I will refrain from doing so. "They" pissed me off to the point where I was going to completely drop out but have recently reconsidered. We in Ohio,(of all places,) have an excellent/golden opportunity to elect a DEMOCRAT Governor AND Senator so our family will once again be heading to the polls with bells on. Straight ****D**** once again here as well. Oh, and to hell with the trolls...

[LynneSin]

34. It's because it's all about "ME" and not about "WE"

"My politically ideologies are so perfect that I refuse to vote for anyone that dares violate it and I'll teach them a lesson even if that means a republican would win that seat anyways"

That's what it is - nothing but pure selfishness. That torture bill sucked but do you think we're going to have any chance to hold the Bush administration accountable if we allow the republicans to keep control through 2008? Poor John Conyers will be forced to continue his 1-party hearings & investigations in broom closets because the republicans refuse to do anything.

If only for John Conyers I make this plea! And don't worry about what Nancy Pelosi said about impeachment. Conyers neither agreed OR disagreed with Pelosi. He doesn't want to screw up the chances of gaining control. If he wants to impeach he will not be stopped by Ms. Pelosi

[desi]

43. Absolutely Lynne

You have several examples of it right here in your thread. We will be able to pick up at least one of those "it's all about me" votes here since we have a recently turned 18yr old who will be voting this Nov. We will also be working hard on the Bushbot relatives to counter a few others..

[OhioBlue]

95. Hi Desi!!

:hi:
Straight Dem for me too this year.

Our candidates are FANTASTIC!

Plus if we get Strickland, Sykes and Brunner elected this year, we have a much better chance in 2010 with them as incumbents and can keep the Republicans from redrawing the congressional districts to their favor in 2012!

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Short answer -

Trolls.

[Salviati]

61. I think it's the uncertainty as to what type of forum this site is:

is it a public square or a kitchen table. For example, in the public square, I'll pretty much stick up for any Democrat, any union, etc, but around the kitchen table, talking with my like minded friends, I'm much more likely to be critical of many of the people and organizations I'd support im public. In private, I'm free to express my dissapointments and frustrations without the fear that they will be used against me, but to do so in public would really just be doing my enemies work for them. I think that a lot of the arguements here stem from the fact that some people see DU as a public square type forum, whereas others see it as a kitchen table.

[MrsT]

65. And discouraging people from voting helps how?

Even if you are at a kitchen table, how does that help?

[Salviati]

102. Oh, that doesn't help a bit, those people are either defeatist fools

or republican trolls :) . I guess I was talking a bit more generally about how I see this place...

As for me, it's a straight D ticket come this fall. The primary is the time to make a statement, the general is the time to play to win.

[blondeatlast]

112. Pretty wise analysis, IMHO. I think that WHEN the Democrats gain power,

this place will be much more of a kitchen table place and I'll feel more than happy to criticize my new Senator Pederson from AZ (choose your favorite form of fate or divine power to beseech here). Lord knows he's pretty conservative, but that big D-AZ is a lovely little embellishment right now.

We've been beaten back so long that I've got some raw nerves, though (I'm from a very red state) and so I admit I don't like seeing some of the wholesale Dem bashing I've seen here.

Right now, I need to feel a little security that the Dems will have a voice--and some lovely chairmanships and some MAJORITY leader status to keep on keepin' on.

[pnwmom]

120. Of course it's a public square!

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't thinking very hard.

[LostinVA]

74. Gosh, I know, it's almost like some people want Dems to lose votes

Hmmm......

Welcome to DU, btw!

[Buzz Clik]

7. Your choice, your vote. I won't be joining you.

Each candidate will be evaluated on his/her merits.

[MrsT]

9. What is the merit of potentially subjecting the US to more republicans?

That is what you are doing if you don't vote for democrats, unless you are talking about local races.

[LynneSin]

12. It's a sad world where we really are given just two choices

and it will not change until we start getting some more democrats in office ESPECIALLY in the local races where we can make voting process changes like having the Louisanna-Style run-off elections. With a style of election like that we might be able to see more 3rd parties emerge and win races

[blondeatlast]

113. That's the ticket, LS, but the holier than thou types can never see

the big picture.

I'd love to see the Greens really put up some strong candidates at the local level--if they have good showings, I'd love to see the Dems become the party I was raised on!

[Buzz Clik]

14. At a national level, it looks like I'll be going Dem all the way.

However, if I lived in a district where the Senate/House candidates were not emphatically pro-environment, pro-choice, or had a history of voting of torture, I would not vote for them. Period.

Voting for a Democrat who is not willing to represent me sends the wrong message.

[LynneSin]

19. If 3rd parties are to make it big then we need to start locally

Again, it's a sucky election system; however, we have to work with what we have right now. Winning the big races takes money and name recognition and if you don't have either of those things then you're nothing more than a potential spoiler for the candidate that is technically on your side of the political spectrum. Rick Santorum knew that and invested in a Green Party candidate just to help enable his re-election.

I think Bernie Sanders is the best success story of a 3rd Party candidate (actually independant) making it to the US Senate. The guy did not wake up one day and say "I'll be a US Senator". Instead he started with the Mayor's job in Burlington and built his career up for there. Now Bernie Sanders has such major name recognition that the democrats wisely choose not to field a candidate to run against him and the republican.

I respect your choice for how you are voting locally and personally, I have no problem with others who do that. Who knows, maybe I'll find a 3rd Party local candidate that I could help elect!

[Buzz Clik]

23. We aren't that far apart in our reactions to current events --

we're simply acting in different ways.

However, there must be a change. Now. Democrats and Republicans alike.

[MrsT]

63. Letting a Republican win sends the worst message

What good message was sent by voting for Ralph Nader in 2000? Who did that benefit? How did that make anything better for the US?

[paulk]

118. Some questions about your voting philosophy -

I, myself, never see voting as about "me", as you do. I'm well aware that I'm politically out of step with the majority of voters in my state. That being the case, I try to look at the bigger picture - at the "we" picture, as it were.

Many times I have voted for candidates when I agreed with less than half of their positions on the issues - because their opponent scored even worse on those issues. I guess I just felt that even though that candidate didn't live up to my standards, my vote for him or her was for the greater good. It was a "we" vote.

And, yes, there have often been third party candidates on that ballot who "scored" better than the person I ended up voting for. But, there are two questions I always have to ask - what are that candidate's chances of getting those issues heard or legislation addressing those issues passed, and, more importantly, what chance does that candidate have of even getting elected? The answer to both those questions has always been zero.

The other question I have is with this idea of sending a "message". What message is sent if your non-vote helps to elect the candidate whose position's you disagree with the most? Is that candidate going to listen to you? Is the candidate who failed to get elected going to listen to you? Maybe he or she will, but what good will that listening do for someone who doesn't hold office and is therefore unable to do anything with that "message"?

Also, it's quite possible that that "message" will have the opposite effect of what you desire. Why should the candidate you voted against listen to you? You didn't vote for him/her... Why shouldn't the candidate move away from your position's and toward the opponents? After all, people did vote for those positions; maybe there's more votes to be picked up in that direction?

[LynneSin]

11. Then find a site for Republican Enablers

There are too many of us who know that we cannot survive another two years with republicans controlling everything in DC.

I know that if Democrats gain control of the Senate/House that they will piss me off to no end and I'll complain about it here. But at least if they have control I know there is some opportunity for us to start making changes and stopping the reign of Terror with the Bush Regime. Doing anything to help republicans win, which unfortunately includes voting 3rd party or just not voting, is not an option - it's enabling republicans to win.

I've seen this too many time where republicans force controversial votes less than two months before the election where democrats are "Damned if you Do and Damned if you Don't" - these votes are hopes to pisses off the fringe of the democratic party in hopes that they won't vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate.

It's time to stop letting them get away with this. I will remember every name that supported the Torture Bill and when their next election comes up, I will start fighting for a replacement sooner than 2 months before election day!

[Buzz Clik]

17. "Love it or leave it", LynneSin? How about "change it"

A candidate/incumbent with a (D) after their name who does not vote in support of Liberal issues is just another Republican. Ask Connecticut about their decision to put Lieberman back in place in 2000.

Send the message: listen to your constituents if you want their votes. To do otherwise enables Dems who are traitorous to the cause. That makes YOU the enabler, not me.

[LynneSin]

20. We should change it

But changing it two months before the election isn't going to do anything but divide the liberals and allow the republicans to win. That's why the Republicans, who control most of the flow of legisilation on the senate floor, tosses these controversial votes right before major elections.

I agree that we need to change it but it is not going to change as long as we leave republicans, the ones with the (R) next to their names in control. I want those committees in our hand because there are great people who would probably do amazing things if they could control the committees. Top on that list is John Conyers.

BTW, Tom Carper fits your description to a "T" but he will still caucus with the democrats and they'll still give him committee assignments in areas that won't have a major impact (like Education - which actually Carper is pretty democratic in that area)

[Buzz Clik]

26. No doubt -- we need a long-term solution.

[LynneSin]

30. Have you read the book "Crashing the Gate"

It was co-written by the guys who own DailyKos and MyDD blogs. I went to a book-signing with them and they spoke about just that - making the long-term changes in the democratic party so we have the party that will make a difference for this country. However, these guys were smart enough to realize that long term plans will not be successful unless with make some short-term fixes, even if it were to vote for a candidate that might not be the best dem out there (provided that this was general election not primary).

I'm probably doing a great injustice to the way they described it but it really made sense to me. We need to change this democratic party but it will not happen if we keep allowing the republicans to control congress

[Buzz Clik]

33. No, but I will.

Then I can argue with you on your terms. B-)

[LynneSin]

35. I think we had a great discussion here and have more in common

then what we think.

If you're a fan of DailyKos or MyDD then it's a great read and a great way to support these two excellent blogs. Basically the entire book is about how we need to take back the Democratic Party.

[ClassWarrior]

25. How can you "change it" if you bail?

If you bail, it's just another vote for the authoritarians.

NGU.

[Buzz Clik]

32. I'm not "bailing". A friend of mine is running for the House.

He gets it -- you're a Dem because you vote like one. Not because you like access to power and money.

I vote, I work at the local levels, I criticize our national leaders. Package deal.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[rox63]

16. Then you'll get 6 more years of DeWine

Enjoy it. The rest of us certainly won't. :puke:

[Imperialism Inc.]

21. Sorry, lesser-evilism doesn't work on me.

He voted for torture and gutting the Constitution. The law will not be getting reversed (too many Dems support it and would need to overturn a veto anyhow) it is here to stay. I simply will not vote for someone that is responsible for it. Call me all the names you want I really don't care. I've been listening to this lesser evil horsecrap for 6 years now . I know what a load it is. It simply doesn't work on me.

[LynneSin]

27. Brown has opposed this war from the very start

Perhaps helping to elect a guy who can stop this war is a better option than six more years of DeWine.

You need to send Karl Rove your address so he can send you a thank you note for helping him keep the repukes in control. This is their strategy - divide the party just weeks before the election because they know that there are progressives out there stupid enough to think "It's all about me" instead of "we need to get these bastard republicans out of office"

Your decision to not vote for Sherrod makes you just as much to blame with those who support Torture. You think this will stop if we keep republicans in control? That's what you are suggesting and it absolutely disgusts me!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

38. Yep it's all about you!!

You'll allow this war to continue, you'll allow activist judges to get on the bench, you'll allow Bush to not be held accountable because it's all about you.

Don't think of it as voting for Brown, a man who opposed the war, voted against the IWR and the Patriot Act TWICE (you can look it up). Think of some of your favorites in DC who have done good time after time again - they are the reasons why I vote for Carper and he is 1000% worse than Brown. Hell if I had a candidate like Brown in my state I'd be out there campaigning for him just based on his entire career in the US House.

But it's all about you, please, don't let us interupt your extremely selfish way. I mean keeping this war going and letting Bush get away with it and the almost guarentee that oil prices will go through the roof just aren't as important as YOU

Torture will not end as long as republicans have control. At least with the democrats we have a chance of trying to make a change. So personally, your choice does nothing more than show your support for Torture and the War because you're helping to elect DeWine who will endorse (probably Mitch McConnell) as the Majority Leader

[ClassWarrior]

28. You'd rather support pure evil, then?

:eyes:

Read John Dean's new book.

NGU.

[Imperialism Inc.]

37. I'm not supporting anyone. I am leaving the ballot blank.

My ballot will have 2 supporters of torture on it. I will be voting for neither one of them.
One of them is actually an OK guy. I actually like Brown. I was quite happy to vote for him until yesterday. If he is the kind of guy that will vote to drastically change this country out of political expediency then he has lost my vote. Period. End of story.
You can call me whatever you like... say whatever you like... I know I am in the right here. I will not vote for torturers.

[LynneSin]

41. You're enabling Mike DeWine to win - so yes, you are supporting evil

Seriously, this is the suckiest voting system in the world where pretty much you have only two parties who have any chance of winning. And do you think that system will be changed with Republicans in control?

If you want to support Republicans, then please do so elsewhere. But this is a democratic website and we support democrats, we bitch about them when they fail us and we fight to get better choices in the primaries

[bowens43]

50. By leaving the ballot blank in a close race

you are supporting the Republicans. You can't spin your way out of that.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Hitler counted on rationalizations like this. Period. End of story.

Read John Dean's new book.

NGU.

[brentspeak]

72. So...then...what are you doing here?

[ProudDad]

82. Since when

were you elected gatekeeper?

[bluedogyellowdog]

87. If somebody isn't supporting the Democrat but leaving the ballot blank

but they're posting to a Democratic forum, there's a term for that. It's called scabbing. It's the voting booth equivalent of crossing a picket line during a strike. Scabs shouldn't expect nice treatment if they show their face at a union meeting the next day.

In fact there would probably be plenty of "gatekeepers" letting the scab know exactly where they stand, if you know what I mean...

[ProudDad]

103. So now you good "democrats"

believe that someone doesn't have the right to decide who to vote for or NOT to vote for if their choice doesn't meet with your approval.

Very curious...

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

[WildEyedLiberal]

137. No, you DON'T have the right to decide to oppose a Dem on DU

Read the DU rules and can the "whiiiiiine but what about the First Amendment whiiiiine" crap. If the First Amendment applied to private websites SKinner would be in violation for not letting Republicans post here.

If you care so much about the First Amendment, why DON'T you lobby to allow Republicans and conservatives to post here? Otherwise you're just being a big hypocrite who is whining because he's not allowed to express his anti-Democrat views here. Well, tough. This is an election year and if you are not on board, this isn't the forum for you.

[ProudDad]

140. You're not going to get very far

by shoveling shit on your potential allies.

I may not like most dems but I prefer them over the pukes.

Also, it's only your best friends who will point out your deficits. It's best to listen rather than condemn the friendly gesture.

On Edit:

I would urge any dem in a close district or Senate race to vote for the Dem. I would urge ANY progressive to fight like hell against the corporatist dems at every opportunity.

I'm very lucky; I get to vote FOR Barbara Lee and AGAINST DiFi this November. Ain't that sweet!

[LostinVA]

75. You think your inaction isn't supporting someone?

Because, it does.

Being silent IS supporting, enabler, whatever word you want to use.

I am not a Democratic -- I am a Democratic Socialist, but I will vote for the Dems, even those that are WAY too right for me, like Mr. Webb. Not doing so is no different than voting for the opposition. And, as for "lesser evilism"... why is "more evilism" BETTER?

[blondeatlast]

114. "Why is 'more evilism' better?" Exactly. That oughta be a bumper sticker.

And you wrapped up nicely why we've entered bizarro world. Many of us have no choice but to vote for "lesser evilism," especially in very red states.

I must hope this nightmare ends in my lifetime.

[OhioBlue]

100. Why don't you vote for someone that will

fight for the middle class, for working americans, for affordable health care, for educational opportunities for all, and will fight with all of his heart and soul against the horrible Bush Administration policies? I didn't like "that" vote either, but I'm not gonna bail on someone based on one vote. He's been on the correct side of every issue 99% of the time. He f'd up that vote. He doesn't support torture and you know it. We NEED Sherrod. Ohio is bleeding manufacturing jobs, public schools are in trouble, health care is unafforable for many. The Nation needs Sherrod. We need someone who speaks for the average American's needs.

And... look at the bigger picture to enable the Republicans is only to have their Ultra-Conservative, Extremest appointments to agencies and courts approved, it is to "okay, let the Corporations' interests rise above those of the Public", it is to say "I don't disagree with this illegal war" and "I don't mind if the Shrub is never held accountable" because my Senate candidate f-d up on one vote in some election year confusion....

Give him hell for his vote, but, damn it, help us out... help out the people that NEED Sherrod to work in the Senate for our interests and not for the Oil & Gas, Pharmaceutical, and Big Money interests.

[bowens43]

49. And your actions will help to ensure the greater evil.

You're actions are hypocritical. You claim to oppose torture yet you will be helping to ensure that even worse bills become law.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. The point is, he would not have voted for it if the Repugs in charge

had not presented it to be voted on. And as inept as the Democtratic leadership may be, can you imagine any of them putting such a bill before congress?

It's control of the congress, and the committees that matters.

I'm not saying I'd want to have a beer with him; I just want his party in control of the agenda.

[blondeatlast]

115. Precious few DUers have had Government 101, it seems.

Therein lies a great deal of the problem, and a perfect testament to why we need to get D's in serious power in DC.

The R's have mandated "teaching to the test" and so many DUers have already been victimized by it that they simply cannot see the big picture--which is precisely why we need to take the federal government back and work from there.

I'm all for third parties, but these are crisis times.

[Mass]

54. So you will enable another prolifer, proIraqWar, protrade senator

Compare DeWine and Brown's record on all these issues. As much as I am disappointed by this vote, there are other issues at stake here and Brown is a lot better than DeWine and a lot better than many Democrats currently in the Senate.

[ClassWarrior]

91. There it is. To you it's about evil. To me it's about hope.

You now have two choices. One with a shred of hope. And one with absolutely no hope whatsoever.

You're saying you will abandon your only shred of hope because you're pissed and you want revenge?

Hmmmmm... A so-called Progressive who abandons hope for revenge. Let the pigs fly!

NGU.

[LynneSin]

22. A man who voted against the IWR and TWICE against the Patriot Act

Geez, that was the purity test of what was a good democrat - drives me nuts!


Hell, I would kill to have a Sherrod Brown as my candidate.

I hope you enjoy having DeWine as your senator.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

55. Well, can't think of any other reason why you'd support Republicans

Hell, a guy who has opposed the war and twice voted against the Patriot Act along with being pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-labor sounds like a damn good candidate for me.

I mean why you prefer Mike DeWine has your senator is beyond me.

[HughBeaumont]

60. Six more years of this wimpy, Bush-Rubber-stamp little shit.

Look at that spineless piece of trash, this wonky, wimpass little PUSS. Hates labor, loves corporations, loves war, anti-choice even in cases of rape and incest, loves Bewsh and will genuflect to his every whim. I can't believe Ohioans are this fucking retarded that this race is even close. Sherrod Brown is on the side of every working person in this state, is a progressive's progressive and doesn't kowtow to any corporate intimidation.

Thanks. This what all of you sucker buyers of yet another bottle of Rovian snake oil are undeservedly giving us.

Six more years of this fucking moran.

Thanks.

[LynneSin]

71. Not me, I want that bastard out and Blackwell unemployed

I'm a big fan of Sherrod Brown and I hope that if he wins he does something about this torture bill. He's got a great future and I would be honored to have a man like that represent me

[bowens43]

48. Why not just vote Republican.

It's obvious you want to be sure that Republicans retain control of Congress?

[MrsT]

64. Yes, it is sad that you would pass up the opportunity to replace Dewine

with a much more progressive senator. It is sad that you would choose to punish the US because Brown has some bad votes.

[Straight Shooter]

67. I don't care what the name is on the ballot; I care about John Conyers.

Pull the lever for anyone other than a Dem, or don't vote at all, and you disrespect the greatest patriot this country has in this time of need.

Go ahead and kick John Conyers in the teeth by ignoring the greatness he can accomplish for this country.

All Democrats wear John Conyers' face, AFAIC, at least until after November. Then we sort the wheat from the chaff.

[blondeatlast]

116. WORD. Just look at the D and think Conyers, DU.

You don't have to know how the Senate and House work, you just have to know how much power Delay once had and think Conyers instead.

Do it that way and you don't even have to hold your nose.

Beside every D on the ballot is the name Conyers.

[madmunchie]

131. I'm voting straight "D", because I want BALANCE back

in Government. Until that happens we are screwed

[lpbk2713]

10. I'm with you.

It's time for a change.

[ms liberty]

18. You won't hear any complaint from me!

Because I'll be voting D until hell freezes over. AFTER we get control we can start worrying about getting the Dem neanderthals out of office. But we've got to have control of Congress first. It's not about individual Dems now - it's about saving our democracy, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights.

[KansDem]

36. Well, I'll be voting on a Diebold machine for a DINO...

Maybe the two will cancel each other out?

Maybe two negatives will make a positive?

Maybe...

I just don't know.

[LynneSin]

39. That's the pathetic thing

I have these 'Rah-rah vote democrat' threads and for many it's a moot point with the voting machines

:cry:

[Pacifist Patriot]

86. So will I. Diebold Opti-Scan and Bill Nelson. Ouch!

[nradisic]

40. Same here

GOP - Gang of Pirates...

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

45. But you are supporting Republicans

It's a fucked up system but trying to change it 6 weeks before the election will keep republicans in control.

Seriously, perhaps the admin can start a forum just for "Progressives who want to enable Republicans to win" because it's absolute bullshit here. We all knew that republicans would toss something controversial out there right before the midterm elections because they know that these dumbass democrats (and that's all of us) will bicker over the vote and then decide that not voting or voting 3rd party is the better option.

It's shameful - but you are endorsing republicans with your choice. You willing to live with republicans continuing this shit and Bush never being held accountable and this war never ending - then help them out by not voting!

[LostinVA]

77. Amen, sis!

[ProudDad]

84. It's a fucked up system

and it won't be changed until either another party (of the working people, and the growing, populist, progressive left in this country) takes over or the dems change from their corporatist, boot licking present formation and discover populist, progressive values.

As long as we all continue to rubber-stamp the same (lieberman, landreau, nelson) wimpy caricatures of a hazy, remembered Democratic past, they will continue to disappoint us.

I'm NOT advocating allowing egregious repukes like DeWine, et. al. be elected by NOT voting against them. I'd agree that sometimes one has to hold their nose and vote against in order to put a few good people in power and boot the fascist repukes out!

I DO advocate scaring the shit out of repuke lights like Feinstein by safely voting in GREAT numbers for the Green Candidate in California!

[ClassWarrior]

122. If "the dems change from their corporatist, boot licking..."

"...present formation and discover populist, progressive values??"

:rofl:

How do you expect them to do THAT all on their own?? Don't you get it?? WEEEE need to do it. WEEEE need to infiltrate the Democratic Party and restore it to true Progressive values FROM WITHIN.

NOT A DAMN THING WILL HAPPEN IF WE BAIL ON THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

NGU.

[ProudDad]

123. That must be what the Whigs said.

We gotta hang on to the two party system:

Whigs and Federalists....

[ClassWarrior]

124. I didn't say "hang onto" it. I said change it from within.

But apparently you feel you have to distort my words to make your point.

NGU.

[ProudDad]

139. The history of the last 38 years

would suggest that "changing it from within" ain't working too well...

[bowens43]

46. You will vote for traitors.

By not voting for the Dem you are helping to empower the party that overwhelmingly voted in support of this bill. Your little temper tantrum will help to ensure that there will be much of that whhich you claim to oppose.

You're a hypocrite.

[bunny planet]

51. Absolutely LynneSin

K and R
:kick:

Hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Dems and visualize John Conyers with subpoena power, and a hold put on any more extreme Supremes for the rest of His Fraudulency's reign.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. I'm right there with you, Lynn. STRAIGHT D

K&R

And I want to underscore what Lynn closed with.

"I'm pulling the big "D" lever. Got a problem with it? Don't bug me about it!"

[Javaman]

56. If it actually was a lever, I wouldn't have a single problem with that...

However, it will more than likely be a button, and frankly, I have a gigantic problem with that.

Paper ballots or at least paper receipts now!

[LynneSin]

66. Thanks, now you're ruined my day

:cry:

Upsetting but true

[Mass]

57. Bravo!!

[AtomicKitten]

59. With a heavy heart, I agree.

eom

[LynneSin]

62. You and me both

:cry:

But I can't see allowing the republican administration more control. But I will remember the vote and fight for change in upcoming elections!

[jen4clark]

68. No problem with that.

I will be doing the same. Once Dems take back control of at least one house, then we can concentrate on weeding out the DINOs. Priorities. As long as Repugs are in control of all 3 houses, our options are much less -- well zero, actually.

[bluedogyellowdog]

69. I am too

Yellow Dog Democrat all the way.

It looks like this board is cluttered with people whose primary allegience is not to the Democratic Party and will look for every excuse to badmouth the party. First thing I'm going to do, is spend a little time today adding every single poster to my ignore list who I see posting things like: "Don't vote for the Virginia Democratic Senate candidate because he's just as racist and sexist as the Republican!", "I hate the Senate Minority Leader 'cause fewer than half a dozen Democrats didn't vote the way I wanted to XYZ issue!", "Don't vote, instead get out in the street and unite under the glorious red banner of the Maoist Revolutionary Kook Party!", or "I'm taking my marbles home and voting for the Greenie Weenie Whiny Libertarian Reform Natural Law Socialist Splinter Party!"

Posting those things will mean being added to my ignore list immediately. I will not post cookie recipes, I will not attempt to engage these non-Democratic naysayers in debate. I will just ignore them. We have far too much work to do over the next month getting as many DEMOCRATS elected as we can.

I encourage everyone else whose allegience is to the Democratic Party (and not to the whiny third-partyites and naysayers) to do the same thing.

Yellow Dog Democrats! Hooh-ah!!!!

[DancingBear]

90. If you haven't done so already, could you add me?

I'd SO hate to be left out, and I'd consider it an honor to be ignored by someone like you.

Thank you so very much!

(Not that you'll be here very long anyway - you should try and be more discreet next time. The whole Maoist and Socialist thing gives it away)

Ya dig?

[WildEyedLiberal]

138. Yeah, encouraging people to vote for Dems is a sure sign of a troll

I think YOU'VE got it exactly backwards.

[question everything]

70. You are lucky to have a "leverl." Hadn't use one since... 1984

when that lever included Walter Mondale..

since then there were either marking or punching :evilfrown:

[LostinVA]

73. Me too, sis, and I'm a Democratic Socialist

Well, I'll probably vote for Allen instead of Webb... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Just practicing for my one-hour Freeperhood every Wednesday from 9-10 pm.

[Clark2008]

76. I am, too!

Harold "Torture" Ford Jr. is STILL getting my vote because I'd rather have him, a man who's somewhat pro-choice, who's pro-public education and pro-environment, that Republican Bob "Used my power to make me some fat dough" Corker, who agrees with me on virtually NOTHING (and a flip-flopper to boot: he was pro-choice until he had to win a statewide Republican primary and then, poof, he suddenly became anti-choice).

[emulatorloo]

78. Me too - imagine that SNAKE Pat Roberts out of his committee chair EOM

[SDDEM06]

79. Why every Democrat should vote for Democrats November 7

Who do you want to be...

Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Thad Cochran or Robert Byrd?

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
John Warner or Carl Levin?

Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
Richard Shelby or Paul Sarbanes?

Chairman of the Budget Committee
Judd Gregg or Kent Conrad?

Chairman of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee
Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens or Daniel Inouye

Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
James "Global Warming is a fraud" Inhofe or Max Baucus?

Chairman of the Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee
Michael Enzi or Ted Kennedy?

Chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forest Committee
Saxby "Confederacy Forever" Chambliss or Tom Harkin?

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee
Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter or Pat Leahy?

Majority Leader
A southern bigot or Harry Reid?

Whose voices do you want to be louder?
John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn?
Or Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, John Kerry and Bernie Sanders?

If you want to have Democratic leadership, a progressive agenda before the Senate, a check on the extraordinary power afforded to the executive branch then you MUST vote for a Democrat, no matter how much you disagree with them. When you pull the lever (or push the button) for Tom Carper or another person you consider a DINO, imagine for a moment you are voting for Russ or Barbara or John - because that is exactly what you are doing.

[AX10]

110. Exactly!

[ProudDad]

80. Self Delete

[LynneSin]

83. Well someone has to say it

Since we've got a dozen "I'm not voting for such-n-such democrat" all over the boards.

I just want folks to know that voting straight "D" isn't a bad thing even if you're stuck with a bad democrat like I am (Tom Carper). We just have to fight harder next election to get these folks replaced but they are still better than the republican option.

[Poll_Blind]

88. The worst I saw was the idea of replacing the Democrats who DID...

...vote for it with Democrats who would not. And "worst" isn't even an appropriate word but in relation. That's all. 98%, at least, of the Democrats here know that going anywhere else than the Democrats is political folly. Which, by the way, is why they're so upset. It's not like a Democrat who's pissed with some of the Democratic response has another hook to hang their coat: If you're progressive, the Democrats are the only show in town, politically.

  Again, understand this is why they're so goddamned frustrated, including me. I've always voted Democrat, always. Which is why I and so many others, bitch so loud about this.

PB

[ProudDad]

104. I don't happen to think that

joe lieberman is better than Lincoln Chafee.

I would agree that a House and Senate (and White House for that matter) occupied by dems would be somewhat better than the current group of fascist pricks -- but that's damning with faint praise :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. I'd be tempted except for a local race.

The democratic candidate for county commission in my district is a real do-nothing ass beholden to developers. His republican candidate has a better track record on environmental issues and did not accept campaign contributions from developers and builders.

Other than that, I can't think of any other races in which I'd vote for the Republican.

[LynneSin]

89. I'm thinking that's not a bad idea

Problem with my senator, Tom Carper, is that he comes from a Democratic Party where they pretty much know who is going to run each election. I'd like to see some fresh blood elected and I might consider 3rd Party on a local level

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Local races are different

Straight Dem IMO means Congress, Senate, and President. 9.99 times out of 10 I'd include Governor in this too. Every so often you will see a fairly Progressive Republican and a hack running for the Dems and I could see voting for a Republican Governor.

State legislature is probably also a good idea to vote Dem most of the time because they have partisan control just like congress. The only difference is that state lawmakers will defy party more than national lawmakers and every now and then you will have GOP state lawmakers who are really good and Dem ones who are just as bad or worse than Repukes. Also remember, though, that state legislatures draw congressional districts so even if the Dems are shitty on the issues, they will at least draw the districts to help their own remain in power.

Granted usually on the local level the Democrats will still tend to be better than the Pukes. So most of the time I'll probably end up voting D on a local level anyway.

[VirginiaDem]

92. Don't worry guys -- there aren't that many Lofty Abstainers

out there this time. There seem like a lot in here but this isn't exactly a representative sample of voters. Go ahead: sit it out in the name of purity, all 16 of you in your caverns. The rest of us -- the oh about 100 million of us -- will pull the Democratic lever. Some of us will do so with our noses plugged, the others without. You guys -- all 16 of you -- maybe can get together for a boycott of the great Democratic blowout of 2006 for mutual support.

[enigmacat]

97. LOL

"You guys -- all 16 of you -- maybe can get together for a boycott of the great Democratic blowout of 2006 for mutual support."

LOL again. Seriously? For all our sakes, I would love for you to be right, but in reality, if the past six years are any indication, our jelly spined Dems in CONgress will let us down, even IF they win.

I plan to vote, but how arrogant is it to attack someone who refuses to vote based on principle? Let me get this straight: Someone refuses to vote out of principle, because one side is evil, and the other side are enablers, and this is bad. But, if someone votes for Dems that they themselves ADMIT they don't like, simply because they are Dems, that is right? Sorry, principle wins that one. And, the notion that the end justifies the means is laughable because we are already in the End Game, and we ain't winning.
I am not a defeatist, but I am not going to excuse the betrayal of our support by the Dems over the past years. They don't automatically earn my vote. If they won't fight for us, why does it matter if we vote for them or not, or if they win or not? WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN WHEN WE HAVE NEEDED THEM?
Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, John Conyers, and Ted Kennedy have been the only ones that I have seen with any backbone. The rest can forget my automatic vote.

[ClassWarrior]

109. What about Russ Feingold and Barabara Boxer?

What about Maxine Waters and Henry Waxman? What about the many, many Progressive Dems who ARE JUST STARTING TO FIND A VOICE right now? Who haven't felt empowered to speak out thanks to RW talking points like, "our jelly spined Dems in CONgress will let us down, even IF they win."

Maybe it's not happening quick enough for the the instant gratification crowd, but I see progress, and I'm not ready to throw it in the toilet in exchange for Cheney**'s Fourth Reich.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

117. Every D says Conyers, Feingold, Boxer.

Every D says POWER in committees and media exposure.

[Up2Late]

93. I wish I had a Lever, all I got is a stupid Diebold machine that's...

...not going to count my vote. :argh:

[enigmacat]

94. You are assuming that the Dems in Congress will suddenly grow a spine...

IF they win Congress, will they suddenly stick together? Will they vote as Democrats? Will they stand up for us against the inevitable confrontations against BushCO? Anyone else been watching the events of the past six years but me?
So many people assume that the Dems win, and POOF finally we will have some say again. That is a pipe dream. The Dems in Congress, with few exceptions, are career politicians, and could not care less about us, the public.
I know where you are coming from, but it is delusional to think this lot of Dems would stand up for anything other than Bush entering the room.

[ClassWarrior]

96. No, she's assuming that we have a HOPE of changing them. And no hope...

...whatsoever with the Rape-Publicans. And that's what makes her a Progressive. Hope.

NGU.

[LynneSin]

106. You summed it up better than I did

Here's a concept - someone is going to win that seat in November. Do I want to spend the next 6 years fighting Tom Carper, who will find ways to piss me off time and time again but still do damn good when it comes to choice, environment and labor. Or do I want to fight Jan Ting, who will pretty much follow the Bush Regime platform 99.95% of the time.

I want Carper out as much as the next person but not at the expensive of forcing me to fight a republican in that seat. So Tom Carper, if you or any of your staff is reading this - know that this Delaware Democrat KNOWS how you have betrayed the party both with the Torture Bill and supporting Lieberman AFTER the primary. I'll give you my vote but you better shape your ass up in the next 4-5 years or I'm finding a replacement for you in 2012

[messiah]

98. I'm pretty sure any staunch democrat will vote for a democrat even

if let's say in 2020 the democrats become beyond neo-cons.
It doesn't matter what any body says or even what you believe in you will still jump off the bridge.
The system is corrupt and will continue to be corrupt, nothing matters so it's over and done with.

[MODemocrat]

99. My husband and I are going to pull the D lever

Whoever's on the democrat ticket gets our vote, no matter what. I've had enough of the goofy, out-of-touch republicans to last me the rest of my life. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:thumbsup: :dem:

[Bonobo]

101. You start a thread for that?

[JNelson6563]

105. Me too but...

That's all they can count on me for. Fundraisers in this region have been cancelled and the reasons why made clear.

If Stabenow wins in Nov. I suspect the search for a primary challenger will begin the next day. Sick and tired of DLC cowards, running in fear of the Rethugs.

This vote cost Stabenow A LOT in both enthusiasm and money. Ya reap what ya sow Deb.

Julie

[ClassWarrior]

107. I hope you're active in the search for a primary challenger...

We need good people like you, Julie, working on the inside to make the Democratic Party Democratic again.

NGU.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[nradisic]

119. Nutnin' but Dem'

Me too...

[TankLV]

121. That's what I'll be doing - holding my nose, too.

After this election, I don't know if I can manage yet another "charlie brown" any longer...

[LeftishBrit]

125. For the sake of the whole world...

please get enough Democrats in so that the Bush Fascists don't have total control.

In France a few years ago, there was a real danger that LePen's far-right National Front was making serious inroads. In order to prevent that party from gaining control, the socialists and other parties united around the conservative candidate Chirac (yes, contrary to whatever the Freedom Fries Republicans may imply, Chirac is a Conservative). LePen was seen off. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

At the moment, Bush appears to be like LePen, but with far more power than LePen could have dreamt of. I think the world needs the Americans to elect as many anti-Bush representatives as it can, even if some of them are conservative themselves. Later, it would obviously be great if the Democratic party could be pushed a bit more in the liberal direction, but I assume that there isn't time before the election.

And I'm hardly a party-loyalist who condones anything in a nominally left-of-centre party. I speak here as someone who is utterly disgusted with our own party-traitors (Blair etc.); who would choke rather than vote for such a person; who supports a multi-party system and electoral reform; and who hasn't voted for one of my country's two major parties since 1992. But that's a luxury I am lucky enough to be able to afford. If we were in danger of unopposed fascism, I would vote for ANYONE who offered an alternative.

For the sake, not just of your own country, but of the whole WORLD, please do hold your noses!

[Q]

126. I've heard Republicans say this same thing...

...all my life. They insisted on voting (R)...not caring what the candidate said or how they voted on the issues. They simply wanted to win...and screw the consequences for America. And now some Democrats are doing the same thing.

It amazes me that these same people actually wonder what happened to their country.

[ClassWarrior]

127. Where did she say not to care? On the contrary...

...she explained quite clearly how deeply she cares and how well-reasoned this decision is for her.

So you think Rape-Publicans are well-reasoned?

NGU.

[anaxarchos]

128. I recognize the same catechism as well...

...and not just the Republican one. "My country right or wrong"... "No matter what we may do in Vietnam, we are a thousand times better than the communists" (to be played as a voice over to napalming villages). "No one can think," says Bush, "that we have anything in common with the terrorists", as he defends torture.

It is the "good german" argument... designed to shut down discussion in favor of a declaration of loyalty. The "caring deeply" part is pure afterthought and totaly irrelevant. Apparently the "caring" is not deep enough to come up with anything better than, "talk to the hand".

The defense of the right to be a blockhead, makes the significance of the lever you pull... or sit on, for that matter... entirely secondary.

[ClassWarrior]

130. So did you glean psychically that "the 'caring deeply' part..."

"...is pure afterthought?" Because to any rational reader, caring deeply appears to be fundamental to Lynne's message. From what part of your anatomy do you draw your conclusions?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

132. And while we're at it, how does a thread with more than 130 responses...

..."shut down discussion in favor of a declaration of loyalty"? It seems to me that the OP has actually encouraged discussion among people. Even people like the poster below who suggests that we're already in a dictatorship and we have only two options: beginning violent revolution or giving up and letting the Rape-Publicans take full control.

:eyes:

NGU.

[anaxarchos]

133. You should really...

...change your screen name.

[Poll_Blind]

135. Sefl-Delete

Heh heh, changed my mind on leaving that one public. :thumbsup:

PB

[ClassWarrior]

144. So which one do you advocate?

Beginning a violent revolution or giving up and letting the Rape-Publicans take full control?

NGU.

[IndianaGreen]

129. No, do you?

Why the chip on the shoulder?

:eyes:

A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification -- that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses.

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (1920)

V.I. Lenin

Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

Setting aside partisan fervor for a moment, if that's possible to you, I have serious issues with a regime and its enablers in both parties that have given Bush unchecked powers to detain and torture people, wage war, and to supplant Congress and the courts as the final arbiter of the Law of the Land. The Bush tyranny had a bipartisan birth!

The sooner you recognize that we are living in a dictatorship, and that electoral business as usual won't work, the sooner you can focus your remarkable talents in efforts to restore the republic and punish the criminal cabal currently in power. Bush is not President, he is a tyrant!

As to the Lenin quote, he was chastising the German communists for opting out of the political process on the basis that parliamentarism was "politically obsolete." Lenin's point was that one could not support such a view while millions of workers still supported parliamentarism and were at times downright reactionary. In other words, those of us that see the system for the corrupt protector of the interests of the ruling classes, must still work within the existing electoral and political process (such as voting against GOP) while working for its ultimate destruction, replacing it with what President Lincoln described in his Gettysburg Address as a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[Mad_Dem_X]

134. No problem here, Lynne

I'm from DE, and I'll be voting straight Dem too in November.

[LWolf]

136. No.

I have no problem with you voting your conscience, whether that be "the big "D" lever, or for individuals that you feel best represent your positions on issues, regardless of party. I respect your right to consult your conscience, and make your choices.

I hope you do the same for those whose conscience leads them to choices different than yours. That's really the only way that we can come together on our commonalities, on the things we do agree on, imo; mutual respect for the right to choose politically as well as reproductively.

[depakid]

141. Go ahead

Vote for Republican enablers and get even more far right legislation.

I wouldn't vote for the likes of Carper or Lieberman EVER. They're the reason why the Dems have become impotent and irrelevant. The faster they're gone- the faster we can replace them with people who actually stand for traditional Democrtic values.

[ClassWarrior]

145. If "the faster we can replace them" means in less that two years...

...then the only options you have are genuine, dyed-in-the-wool Rape-Publicans. Is that what you're advocating? Letting Rape-Publicans "replace them" for the next two years so the Dems can get sufficiently pure for you?

NGU.

[tulip]

142. Democrat All The Way!

YEP!

[Richardo]

147. You continue to rock, Lynne

:patriot:

[Zhade]

149. Enabling enablers IS enabling Republicans.

You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Vote for whoever you wish, but at least be honest with yourself about who you're voting for.

[ClassWarrior]

150. We have a HOPE of changing the Dem Party. And no hope...

...whatsoever with the Rape-Publicans. And you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Withhold your vote from whomever you wish, but at least be honest with yourself about the reality of the situation.

NGU.

[Zhade]

151. Right. Because supporting those who support, say, torture...

...will cause them to suddenly realize they're wrong to support it.

If it helps you sleep at night, more power to you. My conscience won't let me support those who support torture, on either side.

[ClassWarrior]

152. If it helps your argument to distort what I said, more power to you.

I didn't say support the people. I said support the party and change it - because it's our only hope.

And if you bail on our only hope, you won't have to play those little "I don't support people who support people who support people who..." semantics games. You'll be enabling the fascist, authoritarian torturers themselves. Directly. If I did that I'd never sleep at night ever again.

But enjoy your little revenge on the Dems. You'll have plenty of time to relish it in the Gulag.

NGU.

[Zhade]

153. Okay then, let's pursue that angle.

Although I think you're wrong - you have no clue how I will vote - let's discuss the "support the party and change it" part, because that's where real progress can be made.

How do you propose we change it?

Once a Dem who voted for torture and against the Constitution is rewarded with another term, how do we convince them to change their support for such stances?

What power do we have to show them they are wrong that we haven't used in the past? What, in your estimation, will get them to stop enabling Republicans in things like bullshit wars based on lies and the evisceration of our civil rights?

I'm completely serious here. Just telling us "vote for the Dem" is NOT a long-range strategy. So how, precisely, do we turn the short-term unpleasantness of voting for somehow who is against our stances into a long-range victory for humanity and liberalism?

Do you offer more of a plan than mere hope?

[ClassWarrior]

154. Infiltrate your county and state party... get elected to the DNC...

Become the go-to volunteer for a Progressive Dem next primary cycle... become an information resource for your DINO's office... There are all kinds of ways to change from within an organization that counts on the kindness of volunteers. Of course that means that we'll all need to get off our fat tuckuses and actually break a sweat. You up to it? Or do you have another excuse?

NGU.

[Zhade]

155. If I were looking for excuses, I wouldn't continue enduring your sniping.

You don't know the amount of volunteering I've done, so don't assume the answer is "none".

"become an information resource for your DINO's office" - I'm not certain what you mean by this.

So your answer is to wait a number of years to effect change? I'm asking how we effect change on the Dems that will be elected in office THIS year. Looking back over the past half-decade, I'm not sure we have until next cycle to do something to alter the course we're on.

How do we convince these upcoming Dems to support our causes, especially if they don't support or if they actively work against them NOW?

[ClassWarrior]

156. You're "not sure we have until next cycle" so your answer is give up now??

:rofl:

I never suggested I have any sort of strategy to "convince these upcoming Dems to support our causes, especially if they don't support or if they actively work against them NOW." But I know one thing for sure - withholding your support from them sure ain't going to do it. It's just going to consolidate the fascists' control.

And I never said anything LIKE "wait a number of years to effect change." WAIT?? Are you kidding?? I'm saying we need to start YESTERDAY, because one never creates fundamental change overnight. Perhaps you should read some Gandhi or Mandala.

NGU.

[Zhade]

157. I must have misunderstood the "next primary cycle" part.

That IS a number of years away for any candidate elected this fall, yes?

Unsurprisingly, I don't consider not voting for those who support torture to be giving up - I never said I wouldn't vote at all. But, again, let's go with your premise that voting in even those types will help.

If they continue to support b*s* on things like torture and warrantless wiretapping after being elected, what do we do to correct their stance and change their mind on supporting such things?

(And I wonder if Ghandi or Mandela would encourage supporting those who support torture.)

[ClassWarrior]

159. You said you certain Dems need to be replaced.

I agree totally. That means we can either replace them this November - with Rape-Publicans. Or we can replace them in the next primaries, which are two years away. Those are your only two options for replacing them. Tell me - which do you prefer?

And that doesn't negate my point that there's plenty of work to do right now changing the party fundamentally.

By the way, please keep distorting my position - like suggesting that I "encourage supporting those who support torture." It just proves your argument is ridiculous and worthless on its own merits.

NGU.

[Zhade]

160. Pretty sure I didn't say YOU encourage them.

We may both be missing each other's points here.

Try this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2859961

It's a much more serious, and less filled with invective, discussion (so far, anyway).

[DancingBear]

162. If this was a static situation, then your position may have some merit

However, it is constantly in flux, and the concept of replacing someone down the road is ludicrous on its face. Here's why:

1) Scenario #1 - The Dems win control of Congress, and recently re-elected Congressperson "X" is an neo-con enabler of the highest degree. Using your premise, come next primary season he/she should get a progressive challenger. But wait! The "conventional" Dem wisdom (and this WILL happen - take it to the bank) will be (drum roll)- "Don't jepardize a safe Dem seat! He/she may ot be what we want, but don't waste valuable resources on party infighting! Besides, if he/she gets bloodied in the primary it will make it that much harder to retain the seat! The Repubs will be facing a weakened opponent. Don't do it!"

Scenario #2 - A DINO Dem wins election this year, logic being that the particular state said person was running in "wouldn't support" a progressive Dem. So now we have yet another Bush-enabler in Congress, but you've already said you're gonna try and oust him/her "next time around." Oh my, I can hear you the voices now - A progressive Dem could NEVER win in this state! BEsides, why jeopardize this seat. He/she may not be everything we want, but at least he/she isn't a Republican!"

The "'we'll get 'em next year" is bullshit - everybody knows that. All it is is a line of bull folks feed themselves to justify re-electing pro-torture Democrats. It doesn't happen, but it helps rationize torture if you buy into it, I guess.

The party machine will never let its guard down, save for an ocassional Lieberman dance so as to show they really "care" about their image. Of course, every DLC hot shot in captivity campaigned with him, and then bailed when he lost the primary. If that doesn't show their "values" I don't know what does.

There is no democratic (in the truest sense of the word) groundswell here - it is merely power jockeying, and making sure you get primo parking spots.

[OzarkDem]

158. Always vote straight ticket

Since the day I began to vote.

[Zhade]

161. A follow-up to your thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2859961

We're discussing how to hold those Dems we dislike or distrust but vote for anyway (for a majority) accountable afterward.

You're invited to join the discussion.

[Eurobabe]

163. Me too, for those poor folk in OHIO

by overseas ballot

Straight FUCKING DEM!