I Work to End the Political Careers of Any Democratic Senator Who Opposes Ending DADT.

[David Zephyr]

Memo to Mark Pryor and any other Democratic Senator, regardless of how "conservative" or "red" you may think your State may be, understand this if you vote against ending DADT or should you not show up to vote when your vote is needed to for once and for all end this wicked, cruel and un-American policy, then your actions will not be lost on the millions of LGBT Americans, be they Democrat, Independent, or Republican.

Our gay and lesbian soldiers and Marines who love this country so much that they have volunteered to sacrifice their lives for it are now expecting you to show your own reciprocal courage, patriotism and decency.

We are watching.

This is not a negotiable vote. You can spend the rest of your life walking on water, but should you vote against ending DADT or should you not show to vote to end it, I will work to end your political career at the ballot, be it by primary or in a general election.

History is calling you now. You can not dodge it any longer.

Hear that noise? It's your roll call and your deliberation time is up.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Do that and you just might

begin the political career of someone else who opposes ending DADT.

[David Zephyr]

3. Flypaper is amazing how it works.

.

[LoZoccolo]

4. There's no such thing. n/t

[David Zephyr]

5. I'm glad you posted what you did. It's forever now in cyberspace.

Noted.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Do you seriously think that unseating the Democrat will give you an anti-DADT Republican?

Let's put that in cyberspace.

[Tesha]

13. No, but it might be easier to remove that Republican next time...

...than it has been to remove some of our pathetically-awful
Democrats. Maybe next time, we'll get a decent Democrat;
who knows, maybe they'll even be from the DEMOCRATIC
wing of our party, unlike to the DINOs you like so much.

Tesha

[David Zephyr]

15. +1

Apparently, there are still a lot of Democrats who actually believe that they can kick the civil rights of LGBT Americans down the road one more time, use our money, our voices, our votes and then stab us in the back one more time, for old time's sake.

Not this time. That day is done. And it is making some Democrats squirm. Too bad.

Thanks, Tesha! :)

[butterfly77]

42. You can start..

with this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9663583

[LoZoccolo]

24. There are no DINOs.

Can you name one?

[Tesha]

25. Choose any of the half-dozen "Democratic" Senators who've stood in the way of legislation.

Many are now headed out the door, of course,
having been replaced in this last election by *REAL*
Republicans. But we still have a few DINOs. And then
there's Lieberman, whom many party big-wigs (including
Obama) supported over the *ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC
NOMINEE*) in his bid to hold on to his Senate seat.
That worked out well for us, didn't it?

No matter what you say, you're trapped by the fact that
we had 58 brand-name Democrats + Sanders + Lieberman,
a filibuster-proof supermajority, and the Senate *STILL*
stood in the way of getting *ANY* good legislation passed.
Of course there are DINOs!

By the way, had the Senate Democrats been "assertive",
Franken would have been seated far sooner, increasing the
time during which we had sixty votes in the Senate.

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

29. Again, can you name one? n/t

[Tesha]

38. You know who they are; they're all your friends. (NT)

[LoZoccolo]

40. Again, there are no DINOs. No one will name one because

I have evidence in the form of voting records that there is no Democrat who always votes with the Republicans, or even does so half of the time. I think the lowest partisan voting record I have ever encountered in these open challenges was in the low sixties and I think that's an outlier. The myth of the DINO is a manipulative and mendacious tactic.

[Tesha]

43. Actually, the reason I won't bother naming one is I've explained it all to you before...

...and you're just trying to waste our time demanding a replay.

Sorry, not playing; you're not worth my (or anyone else's) time.

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

45. When did you do that?

You probably did it; I just don't remember. Did you actually get as far as naming one? Because if you named one you could knock down my argument in one fell swoop! Who wouldn't want a chance to embarass me like that, especially since you might think I'm acting like a jerk?

Like how could I waste your time any longer if you were able to shoot me down so quickly and easily?

[Tesha]

48. Your argument is thoroughly dead.

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
and *STILL* the Senate blocked almost everything the House
did.

Why?

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

49. That's a different question.

The one we're trying to answer is whether or not there are Democrats who vote with the Republicans always. And there is not a single one.

[Tesha]

52. You're funny!

That's not the question we're debating, and no one but
you would claim that the only person deemed a DINO is
a person who votes with the Republicans all the time.

A DINO in my mind is one of the dozen or so Senators
who *ROUTINELY* stab us in the back whenever they're
faced with a tough question or anything that resembles
something that everyone would call "Democratic". Nelson,
Landrieu, Lincoln, and quite a few others may vote with
the Democrats on all those "Honor America's dogcatcher"
bills, but they almost never vote for the ordinary people
on anything that actually matters like human rights, climate
change legislation, labor issues, etc.

And as I said, IF THEY DID, we'd have passed a lot more
legislation during the time the Democrats held a supermajoriity
in the Senate. Instead, they pissed away our best opportunity
in decades and directly caused the Disaster of 2010.

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

53. Democrat stands for "Democrat In Name Only".

This is a mendacious claim when applied to any of our elected Democratic legislators. People avoid talking about concrete details when they wish to make disingenous claims. Your statements simply do not jibe with the fact of our Democratic congressional voting records, and you cannot establish them with the objective legislative record. If they do, point it out plainly. There is not one Democratic legislator who even differs only on motions to honor people (as you say), much less every vote. The fact is that it is difficult to find even one person on DU who won't cower at the chance to say "yes, I think that every bill where this or that senator voted with the Democrats is unimportant, and the benefits conferred to the people affected do not matter to me". None want to be accountable for that at the same time they say that they are only holding elected Democrats accountable. People who make the DINO accusation run from having to actually back it up or be responsible for it.

[Tesha]

57. The typo in your subject line sounds like a Freudian slip to me. (NT)

[dsc]

46. I teach math, and statistics for a living

and have to say statistics have a way of being able to lie. If you take out unanimous votes, of which the Senate has quite a few, I would imagine that Nelson of Nebraska and Pryor of Arkansas to name two, are pretty far down. Add in the fact that they often change what is voted on, usually in the GOP direction before a vote is even taken and I think they can safely be called DINOs. If you include the votes for post offices and the like in the tabulation a 60% democratic voter isn't all that great.

[LoZoccolo]

47. We wouldn't have to conjecture about statistics if we had even a single concrete example.

The votes are a matter of public record and can be easily obtained. We could tell if it was the case that they were all unanimous votes or not. You'd really only need one example to embarrass me.

[dsc]

50. Here is the record of what the washington Post called key votes

from the 109th Congress (2005) on.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/n000180/key-votes/

His vote is column one, GOP position is column two, and Dem position in column 3.

There are 35 votes listed.

10 of them have yesses in all three columns (meaning pretty much unanimous votes). He agreed with Dems in all 10 of those, of course.

He sided with us on 8 more votes.

He sided with them on 16

One vote he sided with the GOP but since we didn't have a listed postion, I didn't put it in either the unanimous or the non unanimous pile (it was the Roberts confirmation).

So he sided with Democrats on 18 out of 35 votes which translates to 51%. Ie over your 50% threshold. But if you take out unanimous votes the total falls to 25 with him voting with us on 8 for a pretty dismal 32%. Now we can argue of what is or what isn't a key vote and I have no idea if I agree with the Washington post on what were the 35 most important votes of the 109th, 110th and 111th Congresses. But I do think this shows a pretty clear example of the effect I was talking about.

On edit It should be noted that on contested votes he sided with us 8 times and the GOP 16 meaning he voted with the GOP 2/3 of the time.

[LoZoccolo]

51. Right, there are no DINOs.

Just like I said.

[dsc]

56. ah no

I guess you can't read or do simple math. the fact is on contested votes Nelson voted Republican 2/3 of the time. If that isn't being a DINO I don't know what is.

[LoZoccolo]

60. "Democrat In Name Only" n/t

[dsc]

61. His percentage would be an F minus in any school in the land

if that isn't a DINO, again I don't know what is.

[LoZoccolo]

63. It doesn't matter, because it's not school. The real question is

do you really not care about the issues where they do differ, or the people affected by them? And if not, do you turn around and expect someone who is not gay and/or not in the military to take your position on DADT?

[dsc]

65. actually Nelson supported my position on DADT

which shows how little you actually pay attention to any issue at any time. As to your other point, he can get elected without my money period. I will no longer financially support any candidate who votes against us as often as that man does. It is his, and Lieberman's fault that we don't have a public option, and say what you want about Lieberman but at least he has the decency not to take Democratic money.

[stillwaiting]

27. That's ridiculous and makes ANY thing you might have to say suspect. You're #3 now, Bye!

[LoZoccolo]

30. All that I asked for was proof by example. n/t

[karynnj]

31. But, that means for 6 years the Republicans hold the seat

Consider that we now have 53 Senators. Losing 3 could give the Republicans the senate - imagine they win the Presidency (which I doubt) and have the House and Senate. Would you be happy that we have one fewer person willing to support a Democrat as Majority leader?

Consider that the Democrats in control in 2005 would have likely prevented the bankruptcy bill. It does make a huge difference controlling at least one House. We do have many Senators who won in the Democratic wave in 2006, up this time, that could be very vulnerable. One, Jim Webb voted for cloture, but has problems with DADT. If he again gives us the cloture vote, should it be a problem if he then votes against it?

[Tesha]

37. Instead of the twenty or thirty years that a DINO has held the seat?

Again, what's the difference, especially in the short term?

Tesha

[LoZoccolo]

39. Which DINO are you talking about? n/t

[Tesha]

12. So what? (NT)

[TheWraith]

17. Classic no-win scenario.

In practical terms, someone who's 75% of a Democrat is better for us than someone who's 100% of a Republican--take Pryor, who backed us when it came to healthcare reform, financial reform, etcetera, etcetera. But that doesn't usually make it any less annoying when they're a stone in our shoe about certain vital issues.

[Tesha]

26. That depends on how long the 100% Republican would stay in office.

If the choice were a "75% Democrat"* forever or a 100% Republican
who soon gets replaces by a Democrat who votes with us on the "big
issues", I'd take the latter path.

After all, what we want is a good long-term strategy and future and
not just someone who warms the seat with a "D" on their ass.

Tesha



*But who votes like a Republican on all the issues
I actually care about

[Smashcut]

36. Well then I guess he'll just break even won't he.

So, no harm done.

Thanks for playing.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Right, no harm done if that's the only issue that matters.

Do you think that that is the only issue that matters?

[Smashcut]

54. RIght now, I'd say it's at the top of my list.

It's time for this issue to "matter" as much as, or more than, any other. Long past time.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Again, how is the Republican going to give it to you?

I could see someone saying "I'm sacrificing this issue for that issue". Everyone here is saying "I'm sacrificing this issue and that issue." You say that it's "long past time" to get your way on this, and yet voting out a Democratic senator will give you at least six years of waiting while you sacrifice every other issue.

[Smashcut]

58. I didn't say a Republican was likely to make it happen.

But keeping a Democratic incumbent in the seat who WON'T vote for it means there will never be the possibility of a Democrat in the seat who WILL vote for it.

Hence, the worst that could happen by mounting a primary challenge against the recalcitrant Democrat is that you'd break even.

[LoZoccolo]

64. That's not true. n/t

[Smashcut]

66. The logic is pretty sound, actually.

It may not serve your interests, but that's not really the point.

[LoZoccolo]

67. Senators have been known to leave office or have been primaried.

I have trouble with the assertion that you could "never" replace a Democratic senator with another.

[Smashcut]

68. Right, they can be primaried.

And should be.

[muffin1]

2. K&R n/t

[SidDithers]

6. And do you feel the same way about Republicans?...nt

Sid

[David Zephyr]

7. Noted.

.

[SidDithers]

10. Recorded...nt

Sid

[jberryhill]

14. Logged

...in triplicate.

[struggle4progress]

8. I expect Rs will be pleased to hear you're only targeting Ds

[David Zephyr]

19. Republicans don't suck up to the LGBT community for money and votes

Still, I do note your expressed "objectivity" in this issue that is vital to LGBT Americans, their families and loved ones, many of whom have paid the highest price possible and how you balance it with the importance of the careers and ambitions of politicians.

Your fair and balanced opinion is noted.

[Dappleganger]

11. K&R for the issues.

[joeybee12]

16. Yeah, getting rid of Pryor would be getting rid of a homophobic buttwad who

opposes any decent legislation and has no sense of fairness...BUT...THINK OF WHAT COULD BE WORSE!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[BzaDem]

44. You honestly think that it couldn't get worse than Pryor? n/t

[snot]

18. Good for you.

Seriously.

[Still a Democrat]

20. I Work to End the Political Careers of Any Republican Senator Who Opposes Ending DADT

Sounds better don't you think?

[racaulk]

22. I Work to End the Political Careers of *Any* Senator Who Opposes Ending DADT

Even better!

[mitchtv]

69. change that to any politician

and I'm in

[racaulk]

21. Damn right!

K&R!

[Swamp Rat]

23. k&r

[xchrom]

28. Recommend - let cyber space record me as being on your side. Nt

[David Zephyr]

34. In permanent cyber ink!

But you and I have always been on the same side, xchrom. Unity in arms!

[spanone]

32. they have NO excuse now that the pentagon report came out . N O N E

[Scruffy1]

33. Hell YES!

[Radical Activist]

35. Right on. Ditto with any who won't take serious action on climate change.

Someone who wants more of their constituents to die in natural disasters doesn't belong in elected office.

[Ikonoklast]

59. I love 'Purity' tests.

They are the path to permanent political minorities.

[backscatter712]

62. He keeps letting religulous views get in the way of his judgment.

Case in point...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_FB6-gGZs

I might add that Pryor's expression at the very end, was priceless. :evilgrin: