A question I dare not ask in GD-P

[Island Blue]

I was thinking about something today and I was wondering what you guys think about it. We all know that folks in GD-P can be brutal (sometimes with good reason) on House & Senate Democrats if they don't vote the way they're "supposed" to. The Republicans (as we all know) have become very disciplined at voting in unison, with a few exceptions from time to time.

My question is this - if the Republicans WEREN'T so disciplined at voting as a block, and voted independently of the Bush Administration's* wishes more often, do you think that would make the way Democrats often vote (not as a block) more acceptable to DU members?

While I do wish that the Democrats voted in unison more often especially at this moment in history, part of me is glad that they don't always vote the same way. To me this shows independence of thought, honoring your constituents wishes and your conscience and yes, sometimes, cowardice (which of course is not a good thing). Having said all of this, I of course wish that the Republicans also broke from party lines waaaay more often and weren't so afraid of the administration* that they are incapable of voting against them.

I think that a two party system is healthy, but in my opinion it only works well if members of each party is "allowed" to cross party lines from time to time without fear of retribution from party leaders or from voters. Am I just being politically naive?

[TayTay]

1. Repubs have always been more unified than Dems.

The short answer to your question is that Rethugs have power and find that they like it. They like the spoils that go with it. They also have some severe stress lines in their coalitions and one way around that is to unify and constantly vote as a block. (On the big stuff. There are some fall-aways on the minor issues.)

The Rethugs specifically started this session of the 109th (Weasel) Congress with the express purpose of teaching the Democrats that they were shi*t and had no power. (Honest. I am not making this up.) The Rethugs saw the last election as a mandate to stuff Democrats into little cages and tease them by constantly putting the key to cage just beyond their reach. Bastards.

Democrats know that they have to unify to get back some power and possibly a chamber of Congress. But Democrats are having a coniption about exactly what to unify around. Should they unify around base economic issues that help the people who regularly vote for them. Should they stand their ground on the 'liberal' issues of women's reproductive rights, civil rights and so forth. The Eastern Dems are different from the Western Dems and have different base concerns. So it's hard to unify the Dems. It has always been hard to unify Dems. (Will Rogers oft quoted line, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat" is true. Sigh!)

The Rethugs wanted their guy to get the Supreme Court job. So, they unified. They believe that they can push the line that Roberts was so friggin good, so friggin obviously qualified to be Chief Justice that he should have gotten the job in a walk. Dems didn't think so, and it pretty much broke down along the lines of Dems who think that they weren't going to get anything better to those who wanted to object to Roberts cuz they don't think he will vote for baseline Dem interests. Sigh!

[karynnj]

2. I think it's an aberration that the Republicans vote in

such lock step on EVERYTHING. I remember actually liking several Republican Senators. Now, I like Olympia Snowe and sometimes Susan Collins. (Not even Chaffee or Spector anymore and I absolutely do not "get" McCain's charm.)

If everything comes down to party line - it's probably that both are only electing people from their extreme. Now, this is becoming truer and truer of the Republican. So, I actually think the fact that the Democrats don't do this is good, even though it often hurts in wining votes. - as long as they have real reasons for it.

[jillan]

3. This is a good topic for discussion.

Right now the repugs are looking like idiots for sticking together.
They know with all of the scandals coming out of this administration, it is hurting their party. It is hurting their party that they won't give up their tax cuts for anything, but at the same time are cutting benefits from the same people that were in the Superdome in Nola.
They don't budge.

And then there's the democrats who desperately need a message. They need more unity. They need a leader, and follow that person. But the sickening part of this to me, is that they have a leader. A damn good leader. A person that 49 million people voted for.

That said, I would never want the democratic party to be as rigid as the repugs.

[LittleClarkie]

4. We pick apart anyone who tries to be a leader

even when they do what we are calling for, they didn't do it right, they didn't use the right words, it should have been Dean instead of Kerry, blah blah blah.

[jillan]

5. That could be the problem with this whole party.

There's no one good enuf! Let's see here:
What they say -
We love Kerry, but some say his message is too weak (???)
Dean has a strong message, but no one takes him seriously.
Clark - I do like Clark, what do they complain about him?
Hillary - too middle of the road.
Biden - he voted for the bankruptcy bill. And has hairplugs.
Feingold - forget it - he voted for Roberts, and he's Jewish, oh and divorced.

Who else do they pick apart?
And why don't they see how perfect Kerry is?

[LittleClarkie]

6. No

As for Clark, they call him a Republican in Dem's clothing, and don't forget he's on Fox News now.

[TayTay]

7. There's no one left who is pure enough

I knew this day would come. We are going to have to hit the big Dem reset switch soon and send everyone back to square one. We can't have everyone hated, it's not right.

Honestly, I vote that we don't kick anyone off of Dem Island until after the 2006 mid-terms. It's not like we have surplusses over here.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Even Dennis got called a fake when he wouldn't agree to impeachment

That was just weird.

[jillan]

9. The problem is that there is not a perfect person. Political or not.

And I'm beginning to think that people in this party are looking for someone they think is perfect.

You all know that I was being totally sarcastic in my pick-the-dems-apart post. I'd proudly support anyone of them. Well, except Hillary. But if she was the one who won the dem nomination, I'd support her too.

[Island Blue]

10. Will there be a day when the Rethugs don't stick together

like they do now? (I know they don't always stick together, but they are really good at it most of the time.) I agree, to me they are beginning to look like idiots for sticking together especially since their votes are often contrary to public opinion. Maybe if they take some major hits in '06 (and we make some gains) that will help to loosen the grip that the administration* seems to have around their necks and embolden Dems to have a more unified message. (Hey, a girl can dream can't she?) On the other hand, if the Dems had a more unified message NOW, maybe they would get more votes in '06. Who knows?