Beware of people who urge you not to vote DemPUBLICANcrat incumbents OUT

[BeHereNow]

of office.

Every "democrat" incumbent who has voted WITH the
republican global elite congress and senate needs to be booted OUT of office
and replaced with someone who will uphold the
oath of office to defend the constitution and a government
OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

No more Demrepublicrats beholden to the multi national corporate
elites, rather than WE the PEOPLE.

BHN

[Redstone]

1. I wish that EVERY incumbent were voted out. All at once.

Start over. Clean slate and all that.

Redstone

[Vidar]

12. With the exceptions of Feingold & Conyers, I agree with you.

[tkmorris]

2. I agree, BUT...............

ONLY in the primaries. Once the general arrives and it's D vs R I don't give a damn anymore, it's D across the board for me, at least on the national and state level. We need control of those comittees damnit.

[ComerPerro]

3. little late for that since most primaries are over, don't you think?

Or are you suggesting we vote against Dems anyway, to get more Republicans in office...

[BeHereNow]

5. You're right. We're fucked.

If we were truly organized, we would have a plan
to elect TRUE democrats into power, but we are not and
we don't.
AS IF re electing democrats who have clearly
shown their allegience to the global elite would save us...
and yet, what options have we prepared as alternatives?
BHN

[ClassWarrior]

17. There it is. Give up everybody. The ADD victims say so.

If it can't happen as quickly as I want it to, I'm gonna throw a hissy fit! Humph!

:sarcasm:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Are you ready to give up these four sweet, sweet words?

Judiciary. Chairman. John. Conyers.

I'm not.

NGU.

[DancingBear]

6. If that happens, and the impeachment roll call is offered,

then beware these words as well:.

Mr. Salalzar - "NO"

Mr. Nelson -"NO"

Ms. Landrieu - "NO"

Cowards are cowards no matter who blows the bugle.

[BeHereNow]

7. Eisenhower, and others, TRIED to warn us...

of the MICC.
Too bad we our response was
to go shopping and say,
"It wont happen HERE..."

"People get the government they deserve" and all that.

If people on DU think voting "democrat"
for the sake of voting the incumbent "democrat" is going to actually
change the agenda, they are SADLY mistaken.
Not when the multi nationals own, with little exception,
BOTH sides of the aisle.

BHN

[DancingBear]

8. True

However, a turn of a phrase and on-demand "moral outrage" can fool many a person.

The agenda, as you know, lies well hidden behind the Meet The Press "gotchas" and Congressional theatrics.

But if the food is good, many will charge dinner, only to find out they're hungry an hour later.

You see, shilling for a credit card company is OK if you're a Democrat, 'cause, well, you know.

And if you play it right, you can get shitloads of points and free plane trips.

I do.

It's at someone else's expense, of course, but so what...

[ClassWarrior]

14. Subpoena power is subpoena power, no matter if we IMPEACH...

...or simply drag these criminals across the white hot coals of justice.

Never Give Up.

[Demit]

9. Don't want to pour a bucket of cold water all over your dreams but

Potential Speaker Nancy Pelosi is oh so sweetly committed to a "new direction" of working together with Republicans & being all bipartisanly and stuff, and she is on record as stating that the Judiciary Committee is subordinate to her as caucus leader and she doesn't see us going to that place (impeachment). I'd like to believe she's doing the ole double pump fakeout and really is gonna slam it home but you'll forgive me if I'm just a wee bit skeptical.

[derby378]

10. Visualize: "Speaker of the House, John Murtha"

Even with his ethics problems, I still lean towards him instead of Pelosi, who bends over backwards for Repukes so often that she's lost most of her spine.

[ClassWarrior]

15. On record, huh? Got a link?

:eyes:

NGU.

[LiberalUprising]

22. Sure

As part of that effort, Republicans are talking up the idea that Pelosi and a House Democratic majority would try to impeach President Bush.

Pelosi tried last week to downplay talk of impeachment, telling members of her caucus and whip team that impeachment was not atop the agenda.

Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s communications director, sent an e-mail Thursday to Democratic supporters in Washington to try to quash impeachment whispers.

“Despite Republican scare tactics, Democrats will not pursue impeachment, and she made that clear to her colleagues this week,” Daly wrote, before iterating what House Democrats plan to do in their first week in power.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/051606.html

[ClassWarrior]

24. So where does she say...

...that she considers "the Judiciary Committee subordinate to her?" Your buddy used quite specific language: "she is on record as stating that the Judiciary Committee is subordinate to her as caucus leader." I don't see it.

NGU.

[Demit]

35. San Francisco Chronicle—

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/13/MNG94IRGOO1.DTL

And for the "new direction" & bipartisan emphasis, she said that on NewsHour Thursday night. I'll let you look up that link yourself.


Edited to add the link where she is quoted as saying the Judiciary Committee is "not where the decision would be made" and "I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we're going. I don't see us going to a place of impeachment."
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05082006.html

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. So you're advising us to vote Republican???

n/t

[skipos]

13. Why do so many people who hate Democrats come to DU?

:shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

16. Yup, the blame-the-Dems-first crowd is out in full force tonight.

Rush must have dropped the DU bomb again today.

NGU.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

19. Where were these people during the primaries if they care so much?

n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. What The Hell Are You Talking About? Primaries Are Over. Time To Vote

for the Dem, no matter who the fuck they are. I think posts like this advocating AGAINST US are fucking nothing short of disgraceful. You need to stop thinking so narrow-mindedly and see the bigger picture, if you can actually open your mind enough to see it. But if you don't, at least don't actively advocate for DU'ers TO NOT fucking vote for the listed Dem come November.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

21. How long are they going to let these idiots keep posting here?

n/t

[skids]

20. Two words: Majority Chair. n/t

[w4rma]

23. Im sick of hearing Ralph Nader's bullshit that helped us into this mess.nt

[Laurab]

25. Beware of people who urge you not to vote for Dems. n/t

[jeffuppy]

26. I'm stuggling with this one a lot...

I just cast my vote for the anti-war primary candidate opposing Maria Cantwell here in Washington. A lot of good that did everyone. Now what to do? I'm left with a classic moral dilemma. The old Nader question, lesser of evils and all that.

I don't like the taste of casting a Cantwell vote in November. It turns my stomach. It FEELS wrong, and I'm a big believer in following my gut. And where do I draw the line if I choose to let absolute pragmatism prevail? Hypothetically speaking: if presented with only two candidates, each of whom supports appalling policies - like the return of slavery for example - should I vote for the one with the otherwise more progressive views? (Maybe one is pro-choice)? Or would the ugliness of it all necessitate a boycott entirely?

I believe there must be a line somewhere. The question I ask myself is whether the pandering, looting and war mongering of the corporate right of the Democratic Party is ample justification to boycott the whole thing. Where is my line? Or do I assume, as in my hypothetical example, that we will be enslaved either way and so I should just plug my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils.

I've loudly defended Nader voters many times in the past, although I sucked it up and voted for Gore. I have a hard time criticizing those whose conscience guides them to give a big middle finger to the whole corrupt game. I fully understand.

So what to do? Save this post because you won't hear much of this from me:

I don't know.

[Lasher]

32. The art of compromise

I know just what you're saying. I've been through a similar thought process many times. I spent years wondering where my line is, but finally realized there are many lines. After what I have seen in the past 6 years I can understand why anyone would be tempted to just throw their hands up and refuse to participate, but I'm not giving up just yet. I don't have all the answers either but since you asked for advice I will offer the following:

There are too many hawks like Cantwell in the Democratic party, but the party is still distinctly anti-war compared to the Republican party. Particularly this year we are not voting for individual candidates in the general election as much as we will be voting for either the Democratic or the Republican party. This is because we must break the grip the Republicans have on Congress. That is our best hope of reining in the warmongering neocon Bush junta.

You have to decide the lesser of two evils. If you go the Nader route you might as well stay home unless you want to make a symbolic gesture. If you vote for McGavick, you'll be helping to perpetuate the lapdog GOP Senate majority, which means more of the same. If you vote for Cantwell, even pro-war as she is, hopefully you'll be sending her to become part of a new Democratic majority in the Senate.

Hold your nose and vote for Cantwell.

[jeffuppy]

33. Thanks for the thoughtful answer!

I'm think I'm gonna need to sleep on this one a few more nights.

[Lasher]

36. You deserved one, it was a very thoughtful question

I admired your search for the moral high ground. I hope you stick around DU. I'd like to see more folks like you participating here.

Good luck on the reflection.

[nedbal]

27. Beware of William Pitt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1603117


WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-10-06 02:07 PM
Original message
Just a reminder
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 02:19 PM by WilliamPitt
that if the Democrat running for the House and/or Senate in your district is a piece of crap, you should vote for them because you aren't voting for *them.*

You're voting for a recapturing of the majority by the Democrats.

You're voting for the removal of people like Frist and Hastert from power.

You're voting for the recapturing of the Intelligence Committee, the Finance Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Government Oversight Committee, and a dozen other committees of unbelievably substantial power.

You're voting to give subpoena power to John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Barney Frank.

You're voting for the ability to stop judicial nominees...and remember that Justice Stevens is 86 years old and not much longer for the world. You're voting to make sure another Roberts/Alito clone isn't elevated to the highest bench.

Just a friendly reminder.

One last edit, perhaps a snooty one, but it needs saying.

Responsible voting has nothing whatsoever to do with making you feel good about yourself or burnishing your liberal credentials. If you vote because you want to respect yourself in the morning, you are not being responsible to the country. This is a "we" deal, and this is also politics, which is a dirty business requiring multiple, constant and ever-present compromises.

Vote for majority control, no matter which individual Democrat you cast a ballot for. That is the responsible thing to do.
If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push

[jeffuppy]

28. But is that really true?

Would I really be "...voting for the removal of people like Frist and Hastert from power"? Or would I simply be replacing them with more of the same?

You'll have to excuse me, but I have a very hard time discerning substantive differences in worldview between Hastert/Frist and Hillary/Lieberman - at least on the issues currently posing the greatest threat to our Republic.

Will a Dem victory in November auger the end of the corporate looting of our treasury? Don't bet on it. How about an end to aggressive militarism and expansionist empire building? Good luck. Maybe a new respect for civil liberties and an end to political fear mongering? In yer dreams.

Ahhh, but maybe the Dems have a secret agenda to fix our corrupt political system AFTER they get back into power. Shhhhhhh. Don't say anything. Just go along.

I still don't know the answer, but I think it's useful to remember that after choosing between the lesser of two evils... you're still left with evil.

[Asgaya Dihi]

30. It was a lot better without the last edit

That's one thing I find highly offensive personally, the idea that the big reason to object is to polish some credentials, you're putting it above our good or something. I haven't decided for sure if I'm voting this time or not but if I don't credentials won't have a thing to do with it. It'll be because I don't want more of this and everything that goes along with it. www.prisonsucks.com

With the number of disenfranchised voters in Florida if they'd been able to vote instead Gore would have won in 2000, Ohio was close enough in 2004 it might have made a difference there too though I'm not familiar with the numbers there personally. Those tough on crime laws we passed in the 80's and 90's came back to bite us hard. Disenfranchisement aside we're now the single most imprisoned nation in the world both in raw numbers and per capita and we are there with a policy so racially imbalanced it makes South Africa in their racist prime look good. And that's just a tiny bit of one issue, the drug war.

Then we can add things like media consolidation, the depressingly high number who voted to confirm Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and so on. I desperately want change but I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for more of the same. The last 30+ years have not been good ones and unless they plan to change directions I'm not going to confuse them with the impression that I in any way approve. We've done that for decades and they just keep ignoring the people in favor of rewarding money and power and things just keep getting worse and the dems keep getting weaker.

When people talk in terms of change and solutions I get hopeful, when they start talking party line politics and discounting any doubters as ideological purists I start to doubt that we have any hope at all. The progressives who want to fix things aren't a threat to the party or the nation. The way we've done things in the past is.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[JI7]

31. Salazar, Landrieu, and Nelson would probably not have allowed

the Katrina disaster to happen if they were President.

if Dems control Congress gay marriage is not going to be at the top of the list on Pelosi and Reid's agenda. we wouldn't have to worry about whether Nelson will vote for it since it wont come up for a vote in the first place.

i know to some on here none of this matters. but to me it does so i will vote for and hope Dems who aren't on the same level as me do win over the Republicans.

[etherealtruth]

34. Your suggestion is that I vote for a Republican?

...Or are you suggesting I just don't vote ... hmmmm.

NO

I think I'll stick with my initial plan and vote DEM all the way

[unhappycamper]

37. Locking.

From the rules:

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.