36 Democrats (over 15% of Dems) voted with George W. Bush today

[Brian_Expat]

Fortunately Bush's evil constitutional amendment went down to final defeat -- with 27 Republicans crossing the aisle to vote against it.

Votes like this make me wonder why I am a Democrat, some days.

[Dickie Flatt]

1. Hey.

In a party of tens of millions, you can't expect rock-solid party-line votes every time; neither party got that on this one. The Democratic leadership has taken a stand against this amendment and the vast, vast majority of Dems voted against the amendment. No reason to question being a Dem because of this vote.

[Kanary]

2. When you get the names of the evildoers, I want to see the list!

:nuke: :mad: :nuke: :mad: :nuke: :mad:

[Brian_Expat]

5. List of all votes. . .

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll484.xml

[Kanary]

7. Thanks! Just so I know who to glare at!

:hi:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

14. Anyone else notice "Dreier-Nay"

Unless there's another Dreier that I'm not aware of, I would say this is a major step for the representative from California.

[Brian_Expat]

15. He was opposed to the amendment even before his outing

He explained to Signorile that while he supported DOMA he didn't support a constitutional amendment.

[TahitiNut]

20. I'll be damned! Even Joe (Goebbels) Knollenberg voted Nay!

That's the very first vote of his that I've agreed with. (And McInnis voted 'Nay' as well! Wonder of wonders!)

[Brian_Expat]

25. Yeah, the weakness from the Republicans is pretty shocking

As is the willingness of so many Dems to vote FOR this pile of steaming cervine excrement!

[sweetheart]

3. bottom line, it went down... good news

congratulations... the congress achieved some semblance of collective
intelligence. :-) And the winner IS! <the american people>

I'm in to celibrating any victory these days.

[BamaLefty]

4. I Second That Motion

The Democratic Party's slogan sums it up best: "For the People!"

[Brian_Expat]

6. Hey, it's a nice victory

Although I'd rather see us move forward rather than just beat back a neocon assault.

Especially when that neocon assault gets lots of support from DEMOCRATS. Ugh.

[LisaL]

8. We sure do have some bad apples.

[K-W]

9. This is not a reflection of the party.

It is a reflection of just how effective this right wing wedge issue can be among certain constituancies.

The party will always have moderates, that is a reality of our system. As long as the party whole keeps moving left, we have nothing to worry about. We will always have and need moderates and right democrats, just like the republican party knows it needs people like Guilliani.

[Brian_Expat]

10. It's disappointing to me

That Republicans crossing over to vote against the right wing saved us from seeing this stinker potentially pass -- with strong Democratic support.

[K-W]

13. Stop looking at it as a right vs left thing.

I understand that is hard to do with the state of politics right now, but this is how congress is supposed to work. Each congressmen is supposed to decide based on thier views and the views of thier constituancy how they stand on issues, thus you should expect to see crossover.

The end result is that a majority votes against it because it isnt a popular proposal... it looks to me like everything worked just fine, and im not gonna get too worked up because the democratic party contains a minority group that is wrong about the marriage ammendment.

[Brian_Expat]

17. But it betrays fundamental principles of the Democratic Party. . .

. . . to support this sort of bill.

Which suggests to me that perhaps we're seeing a fundamental realignment in politics that not only will sweep Bush from office, but also result in the fading away of at least one of the two big parties.

The Republican aisle-crossing is shockingly high for such a "Republican" issue.

[K-W]

21. The democratic party doesnt really have fundemental principles.

Anyone can run for office as a democrat. You dont have to take a test or sign and oath. The party is a tool for elections, and while there is a certain amount of ideological unity that arises from that, it shouldnt be mistaken for a party that runs from the top down from a set ideology.

I doubt that the republican party didnt OK those people to vote no. The party probably decided this wasnt a battle worth fighting, because the ammendment is not popular with anyone but the religious right. So the party let it be defeated, even though it had to bring it up to please the religious fundementalists.

Thats my assumption, id need to see some evidence of dissention before I believe that the republican party fought and lost. It looks like both parties let thier members choose based on political neccessity because everyone already knew it would fail.

[Brian_Expat]

26. I think your subject line betrays our party's core problem. n/t

[K-W]

28. No it betrays the way our government is designed.

Our system isnt designed to be party based. That is the problem. If it were we could have ideological parties.

It is a product of our system that we have the party structure we have.

The problem we have is that parties dominate politics, but the system isnt designed for them, which makes things very difficult.

[Brian_Expat]

29. Then we shouldn't have parties. . .

. . . and this board shouldn't exist, since Democrats have no principles, thus nothing in common, right?

[K-W]

32. Ummm... thats a complicated question.

Should we have parties... under our current structure, I am tempted to say no, though you would have to change the system to eliminate them, so you might as well just change the system to handle them since that would probably be much easier.

There is a big difference between having fundemental principles, principles, and things in common.

The party does have principles, and does have things in common. But the existance of the party is not based on pushing a certain ideology, it is based on the political advantage of the party, thus there is no party dictation of ideology. The parties ideology comes from the politicians that get elected within the party.

I dont see the rest of your point, if there were no parties, there wouldnt be democrats and this forum would eihter not exist or be called LiberalUnderground. As long as we have parties this forum should exist.

[calico1]

22. Most of them vote according to what

their constituents expect from them. If they come from Conservative leaning states then their voting record will tend to be more Conservative because otherwise they don't get reelected because they would not be representing their constituents. And vice-versa. Here in CT we have 5 Reps, 3 of whom are Repbublican. They all voted "nay."

[RainDog]

19. there is NOTHING moderate about voting for the MPA.

when it's considered "moderate" to vote to change the constitution to deny people rights they don't even have, then we are living in a pretty sick "democracy."

[K-W]

24. I didnt say that.

Lets not get confused over the many possible meanings and contexts of the word moderate. I simply meant that they were people who straddle party lines.

[coreystone]

11. Delete...

:)

[Brian_Expat]

12. Anti-gay constitutional amendment in the House

It's now toast, thankfully.

[Jack_Dawson]

16. Lemme guess...Lieberman?

[Brian_Expat]

18. Nope, he's in the Senate

And even he voted "Nay" when it was up for consideration in the Senate.

[dolstein]

33. What do you mean "even he"?

Lieberman has a solid record on gay rights. Just because Lieberman's religious doesn't mean he's a bigot.

[Brian_Expat]

35. Lieberman is generally pretty conservative

Hence the "even."

[K-W]

36. Liberman has a tendency to be more conservative on some issues, not all.

You cant devide the world into two halves.

[dolstein]

31. Anyone with a clue knows Lieberman opposes the amendment

Why are so many DU'ers ignorant about Lieberman's position on gay rights?

[CornField]

23. Iowa Specific Information

Yes:

Rep. Steve King (5th District-R)
Rep. Tom Latham (4th District-R)
Rep. Jim Nussle (1st District-R)

No:

Rep. Leonard Boswell (3rd District-D)
Rep. Jim Leach (2nd District-R)

Web Sites for Dem House Candidates:

Rep. Leonard Boswell (3rd District) -- http://www.boswellforcongress.com/

Bill Gluba (1st District) -- http://www.glubaforcongress.com/

Dave Franker (2nd District) -- http://www.frankerforcongress.com/

Paul Johnson (4th District) -- http://www.votejohnson.org/

Joyce Schulte (5th District) -- http://www.schulteforcongress.com/

[Brian_Expat]

27. That's the spirit!

I live in the UK, my Congressman (from absentee ballot voting) is Barney Frank, so it's less of an issue for me. ;)

[dolstein]

30. Fewer than 15% of Republicans voted against Bush today

If you're trying to suggest there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, you have failed miserably.

[Brian_Expat]

34. I'm not saying that at all. . .

. . . I'm simply saying that it's shocking that so many Dems would sell out on such a fundamental issue.

[CornField]

38. It pisses me off

I think there is a portion of the democratic party (I have no clue how large) who give lip service to the idea gay marriage, but won't/don't go the full course. That is, many will stop at civil unions and basically, IMO, be perfectly happy to discriminate against a large portion of society.

It reminds me of the times when inter-racial marriages were so controversial. I had hoped those ugly times in our nation's history were over, but I guess they aren't. In my grandchildren's history book there will be photographs of today's bigots as they chain the doors to wedding chapels and refuse to allow gay couples entrance.

Some complain now, as they did 37 years ago, that their religious beliefs oppose gay marriage. Some stand on the ground of religion, either demonizing gay people or suggesting that civil marriage is beyond the Constitution. But religious rites and civil rights are two separate entities. What's at stake here is legal marriage, not the freedom of every religion to decide on its own religious views and ceremonies.

The world won't stop turning if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. Marriage won't crumble if two men decide to celebrate their love at their wedding. And the church won't collapse because the government decides to outlaw marital discrimination. Because that's what it is really about: DISCRIMINATION. And I would remind my US peers that our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others -- Our rights depend on us being Americans.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. Brian, those democrats will be targeted

We are going to try to get rid of them in primaries. Voters will decide if that is the kind of democrat they want representing them and I think in many cases the answer will be no.
However I am sure this broke down along state lines North/South. The democratic party will use this as an excuse to defend the votes of those democrats, but we just can't accept that anymore.
First lets get rid of bush, then let's clean house in the party.