Am I The Only One That Still Plans To Vote Against The Appeasement Wing

[DistressedAmerican]

of the party next time around? People are starting to cozy up to Reid because he "said" he wasn't going to stand for personal attacks on him. Big deal! You get mad if they attack you by name. How about he take a meaningful stand on an issue? Us dems seem to have very short memories. No wonder they keep appeasing the Repugs. We never hold them accountable for it!

The moderates that talk about a backlash against us if we appear to be obstructionists. The dems need to be reminded who voted fOR them. It wasn't the peole they are talking about. They must be made to fear a democratic backlash if they do not stand up to these fools. Enough with the pretty speeches against Bush policies then turning right around and voting for them!

Believe me the list of appeasers is very long these days. My two Senators, Clinton and Schumer will not be getting my vote in 2006. Hillary's march to the center is sickening.

So, please won't you join me in holding OUR elected reps accountable to their base? Or are we going to forget all about how these folks let the Repugs take our country away from us?

Votes are the only tune that makes these folks dance. Make sure they know whose votes they are loosing!

Distressed American, Proud Obstructionist!

[dbt]

1. I'm in!

Senator Blank Lincoln (DINO-AR) has already heard from me about her "proud support of our President" stance on damn near everything and has been informed that she will never have my vote again.

I have been cutting Senator Mark Pryor some slack because he is a newbie, but he needs to start showing me a spine or he loses my vote, too.

What I have written to Miss Blank on several occasions still stands: You have given bu$h everything he has asked for and it has been BAD for the country EVERY TIME.

People say I am throwing away my vote; I tell them that voting for Democrats who support bu$h is the same thing as voting Republican.

:grr:
dbt

[FreedomAngel82]

19. You definietly have to hold them accountable

They can't just say fighting words but have to show us by actions that they are tough in fighting. When they do something we like and are showing some fighting definietly support them and let them know they aren't a lone (as in rep Boxer).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. blanch linclon and mark pryor look a lot better than asa hutchinson....

and Blanch Lincon voted against Gonsalez...

[dbt]

26. A box of maggots looks better than Asa (The Original Smirk)

As for Miz Blank voting against Gonzales, even the blind hog finds the occasional acorn. Where was she on Condo Lizard Reissssss's Sec-O-State confirmation? With bu$h. Where was she on showing returning coffins of American soldiers With bu$h. These are just a couple of recent examples.

:hi:
dbt

[booksenkatz]

2. Backlash?!

Hellfire, there'd be a backlash if all the Dems just sat there and breathed in and out (which is the only thing that a majority of them do these days). So if it doesn't matter WHAT we do -- we'll be criticized for it -- then WHY NOT DO THE RIGHT THING?? I don't want fiery speeches and a go-along-to-get-along vote; I want action. Why are Dems so afraid of being called "bad names?" We're called bad names whatever we do! The Repubs don't give two shits about whether they are seen as obstructionist or even downright insane -- they push their agenda, period. Why can't we do that, even just a teensy bit, for God's sake? I'm sick of applauding a Dem just for doing what he/she SHOULD have been doing all along. I'm sick of applauding a Dem just for doing his/her basic job requirements. I'm expected to do a happy dance and get excited whenever a Dem simply fucking upholds our platform?? Fuck it. No more appeasement. I'm with ya, DA. (Love your toons, too!)

[DistressedAmerican]

3. You have a very good point!

What are we worried about? Has playing nice all this time gotten us anything but hosed as a country? No more! I can't believe the trends on DU sometimes. One week they are reviled as appeasers, the next week they make a speech against the administration and they become our hero again. Where is the consistence?

p.s. Thanks for the props on the toons. I work hard on them and sometimes just do not get the response I was hoping. Good to hear from you.

[MisterLiberal]

52. I'm afraid that

we will have to vote our conscious if we ever want to see a realistic Congress and WH.

Voting for a DINO is no better than voting for a Repuke.

If we all decided to hold our votes for only progressive candidates, even the DNC would notice. We need to do this in the 2006 election, so that the leadership wakes up for 2008.

But we can't back down! We have to hold our ground. Appeasement?

Sorry, no support for weakening of our platform here.

[CWebster]

4. Do you think we will even have a choice when it comes to Hillary?

The media is going to promote her with their own agenda. If the media pushes the corporate agenda which finds natural kinship on the Right, they are going to push Hillary so they can ultimately pillory her. What they did to Dean will be small time. And Hillary is so driven by personal ambition and ego, she will grab for the spotlight at the expense of all else.

Voters will respond to a politician who has their best interests at heart, but it must come from the heart. What is required for our times, is a politician with the ability to articulate the truth with clarity, not triangulate on the Right's propaganda framework. With less, we will lose.

As for Reid, it is HarryTruman hard grit style that provides back bone. You have to respect him for that. On the other hand, I watched that increasingly scatter-brained Feinstein vote against Kennedy's ammendment yesterday - what has she got to offer?

[DistressedAmerican]

6. Sadly, I think you are right about Hillary

I expect she will win in 2006. But she will have to do it without MY vote this time around. Voted for her once. Shame on me. Will not make the mistake again.

As far as Reid is concerned, Am I the only one that doesn't see all this fire? His response to the SOTU was lame and ineffectual as best. Can anyone give me an example I am missing (preferable one that has to do with policy not just getting called an obstructionist)? Maybe I have just missed it. Although, I doubt it. I am a news and political info junky. I watch these folks pretty damn close.

You are right the Feinstien thing WAS odd! Appeasement continues unabated!

[CWebster]

7. I am willing to see how the Reid thing plays out.

I have posted in the past that I watched him filibuster when he was a nobody and he impressed me as tough and tenacious. It is that quality--that psychological character, that salt, that makes him effective. He is not as progressive as Kennedy, but he still is genuine. I doubt he will cross Kennedy though, but we will have to see.

[Mizmoon]

22. yeah hopefully Hillary will lose her Senate seat too

and then we can have a real liberal in her place ... y'know, like Al D'Amato :eyes:

[Al-CIAda]

5. It is ttime to let us know where they stand. Enough sell outs!

:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

8. Awwww, Are You Upset Democrats Are Beginning To Stick Together?

it's such a shame your intent on driving a wedge into the Democratic Party coincides so well with the GOP and their Mediawhores.

How pathetic it bothers you that DU'ers are warming up to Reid.

DU'ers that live a cartoon version of reality are counterproductive.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. When They Are Sticking Together With Repugs, Yes!

[DaveinMD]

35. huey

we are sticking together with good Democrats. Reid is doing a good job.

[Redleg]

60. LOL

EOM

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[DistressedAmerican]

12. Are comments like this useful in ANY way?

How about we talk about the issue. Is that so tough?

[paulk]

27. is your thread useful in any way?

you've got a problem with Democrats working together?

What do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

[DistressedAmerican]

28. I'm looking for a better crop of dems to support.

Should we all just line up behind you for the sake of "working together"?

I work with dems that work AGAINST Bush not those that are his toadies! We need far more of those!

[blm]

10. I don't trust ANYONE who tells me to vote against a Dem I agree w/ 85-90%

of the time, just so a Republican can win who I agree with ZERO PERCENT of the time.

What kind of ego does one have to possess to demand any politician agree with them all of the time?

One like George Bush's?

[DistressedAmerican]

11. If You Keep Electing Repug Appeasers You Might As Well Vote Repug!

Is it so wrong for the opposition party to actually stand in opposition?

If you agree with them 85-90% of the time, you go right ahead and keep putting them there to vote with the enemy. I can't find one that I agree with that often (not liberal enough) with the possible exception of Boxer.

I don't know why people want to keep right on down the path that got us the war, the USA patriot act, Ashcroft, torture memos, etc.

Can someone please explain to what the hell Dems were doing voting for this war?

We keep giving them what they want. If that works for you, fine. It does not work for me!

[blm]

14. If more people used YOUR criteria, Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be in office.

I guesss that would make many a Republican happy.

If you feel so strongly that Democrats at democraticunderground shouldn't vote for Democrats, then why don't you launch your own forum? Is giveitalltotherepublicansunderground.com taken?

[DistressedAmerican]

16. I'm suggesting they vote for DIFFERENT democrats!

Ones with a spine for a change.

[blm]

20. Alot of people thought Kucinich was a DINO for voting with Repubs on

big issues like abortion and free speech (he was FOR an amendment against burning the flag).

If there was a backlash against Kucinich then he wouldn't be in office today.

[moggie12]

21. I'll take a whack at your question re: Dems voting for IWR

I think some Dems voted for the following reasons:

1) Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors in '98 had many worried. Biden, Kerry and others were on record from back then as being extremely concerned about Saddam's intentions.

2) The unexpected "quick win" in Afghanistan gave Bush an aura of credibility/effectiveness. Many people had been wringing their hands before the invasion, saying we'd be bogged down there like the Soviets had been. Maybe some Dems felt that giving Bush the IWR would finally make Saddam toe the line.

Me personnally, I think the Dem's should've realized Bush was going off the deep end when he made that bizarre "axis of evil" speech. Still, I think it's not as black and white an issue as it seems to some.

That said, I would bet that ANY Democratic administration would not have recklessly invaded Iraq the way Bush did, nor done any of the other things you mentioned (Patriot Act, Ashcroft, torture, etc.).

Therefore, I find the logic of your argument lacking. By not voting for the Democratic candidate, you aid the election of the Republican, it's as simple as that. If you don't like specific Democrats, then work within the Party to make changes and actively support the Democrats you do like.

My two cents, since you asked someone to explain....

[DistressedAmerican]

24. I am not advocating abandoning the party

just voting for candidates with more inclination to vote against this nonsense that they keep sending down the pipeline. Let's be clear on that!

I want BETTER, STRONGER, MORE AGGRESSIVE democrats.

As far as IWAR is concerned, I knew it was a disaster at the time. Millions of us did. Why did they not get it. We signed on then spent the whole 04 race trying to distance ourselves from it. That is my point. When we speak against them and then turn right around and work with them, we gain nothing. The politicians get some political cover as they are on both sides of the issue. But, how does that help the nation?

So what I am saying is that I'd like to see more dems I'd feel good about voting for. We need those people to run. The current crop for the most part is a sad lot.

[moggie12]

30. But you said you're not going to vote for Clinton or Schumer!!

That's what you said in your Orginal post. I'm a New Yorker and I don't "love" Clinton --- but I'll be damned if I'm going to stay home and not vote for her!!! No Democrat has a chance against her in a primary and voting third party is just throwing your vote away and helping elect a Republican!! Yes, it sucks, but c'mon, there's some practical realities here. Keep her in the Senate by voting for her, but work for candidates in "lesser" NY races whose views more closely match yours. Then, in '08, support a Presidential candidate you like.

You're going to vote to Spitzer in the Governor's race, right? He more than anyone took on Wall Street and the greedy corporate CEO's. Would that be someone you would consider actively working for??

[calimary]

43. True, nobody had a crystal ball back then, even though there WERE

tea leaves, as you point out.

BUT: I'm STILL waiting for SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, on our side, to step up when someone jabs at them for voting for the IWR and say the following:

"Because I TRUSTED my president. And he LIED to me."

That's all it'd take. I wish Kerry woulda done that, instead of farting around with the "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" crap. That's ALL it'd take. It'd shut 'em up, and put 'em on the defensive.

But YES, we need to hold them accountable. And we have to be utterly relentless. Dog-on-a-pants-leg. If they know we're watching their EVERY MOVE, they WILL have to come around sooner or later. Because there are more of us every day, and there are more of us angry, fed-up types in that group. If they think we don't care, they won't, either. Some of them are starting to wake up and realize that we DO.

And they need to be reminded every so often that THEY work for US. It's not the other way around. I think once they get inside the dreaded "Beltway" and spend less and less time back home, and hobknob more with the Beltway power players, they do lose sight of this. It's a heady experience, coming from somewhere out there in the hinterlands and suddenly find yourself schmoozing in the biggest of the big leagues. You know the song - "how ya gonna get them down on the farm, after they've seen Par-REEEEEEEEEEE." They NEED the reminders that they serve at OUR pleasure, not their own. And not bush's, either.

[moggie12]

46. I know, I know -- it's so stupid

Why they didn't go berserk when it became apparent Bush/Condi manipulated the WMD "threat" is beyond me. And don't get me started on Kerry's confusing statements during the race.....

Partly it's because of the weird times we live, I suppose. I think some Dems are genuinely perplexed about how to oppose Bush and not look like they're "sabotaging" Bush's Iraq/terrorism effort. There's just so much GOP/media propaganda and truth-twisting these days, the Dems are behind the eight-ball every time they open their mouths. (Sigh...)

[displacedtexan]

13. BushCo thanks you for the endorsement.

i am today as I've always been: A Yellow Dog Democrat.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. Nobady Fights Repugs Like Us Red Dogs!

[EFerrari]

15. (How many goofy faces hath the Misleader?) I've been watching

Reid. When they first put him up as leader, it looked like a bad choice. But I'm liking what he does. I like what he did with the cabinet from hell nominations. And that grandfatherly thing he has going is very deceptive. Finally, someone with more than one speed.

[sendero]

17. I understand and even agree..

.... with your basic sentiment, but I think you might be taking it too far.

Reid? Let's wait and see what he does. I'm not as sure as you are that he is going to roll over and play dead.

Let's reserve our "toss the bums out" for the real DINOs in the party, Miller for example. The folks who vote with Bush** every damn time.

Be careful about litmus tests that only 10% of Dems can pass, if we turn against that many we are just cutting off our nose to spite our face. Better to make examples of the worst of them and tell the rest, "if you aren't really a Dem, leave or we'll make you leave".

[DistressedAmerican]

23. Maybe it is a bit exaggerated but,

how much longer should we be in "wait an see if these folks do the right thing" mode? We've been getting pounded playing the way we are playing. The current results speak for themselves. I think, it is about time to change strategy a bit.

[sendero]

31. "time to change strategy a bit"...

... well, I couldn't agree more.

Getting Dean as the DNC chair is a start. I think his rhetoric might set an example of how to go against our opponents and actually get some coverage in the MSM. You don't get coverage making equivocal, hand-wringing, tepid statements. We have to give them a taste of their own medicine.

I agree that as a party we've tried to be bipartisan for too long. It isn't working, and it's time for our Congresspersons to get that. But, I think maybe the worm is turning in that regard. I'm willing to wait a while longer before declaring we need to toss out the entire Dem congress :)

[DistressedAmerican]

32. I too am glad to see Dean get in.

I was a Clarkie myself. But, seeing as how we lost anyway, what did we really have to loose running an honest anti-war candidate. I REALLY hope he can make some progress on the platform orientation. We could use a bunch more like him.

I wouldn't advocate voting them all out. Just the worst appeasers.:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Maria Cantwell lost my vote with her vote for the war.

Voting Green in '06.

[DaveinMD]

34. yeah

let's elect more Republicans. I'll be giving Cantwell some money in your honor.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. I'm sure she'll appreciate it. As much as Bush appreciated her vote.

And, as a mulit-millionaire, I'm sure she'll need it.

[DaveinMD]

38. look at her voting record

she has a progressive voting record. But you will throw her out for one vote and wind up with someone voting with Bush 98 percent of the time. That makes perfect sense. Its this kind of thinking that got us Shrub as President in the first place.

Cantwell lost much of her net worth in the tech bubble a few years back.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. I have to disagree.

It is NOT fighting them tooth and nail that got us where we are today!

[DaveinMD]

40. Shrub was able to be annointed

because some liberal voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for Al Gore. Otherwise, Al would be enjoying his second term. NOw others want to punish good Dems because they disagree 10-20 percent of the time. Great way to help the Republicans get to 60 seats.

[DistressedAmerican]

42. NO, Gore Is Not President Because 5 Supreme Court Justices Put Him There!

We won that election. We got screwed! Remember?

We have been appeasing these evil bastards for 4 years and here we are. Seems like 'staying the course" on this one is getting us killed politically.

Many people fail to see any significant differences between the two parties. Let's give them one by opposing the Repugs for a change. Maybe them some folks would be fired up about the party itself and not just beating BushCo.

[meppie-meppie not]

44. I agree that Gore was denied because of the ruminations of 5 senile

assholes but if you're not voting for Clinton or the other are you saying you'll be voting for a Repukian?

[DistressedAmerican]

45. I'm looking for a more radical left brand of candidate to support

Although, I love Wes. Who is by no means radical left.

Good thing the guy isn't voting on the record. I'm afraid I may not like what I hear.

I am on occasion tempted by the thirdies but, have never gone there.

I voted Kucinich in the primary because Wes was long since out by then and I liked Dennis' anti-war and pro-legalization policy positions.

Kerry was just about my worst nightmare. Voted for the war and then got framed as a flip-flopper for trying to "explain away" his initial support. I worked AND voted for Kerry despite his stance on the war but, when he didn't stand up to fairly overt election tampering I knew he was the mistake I thought he'd be from the first day he announced.

We need to stand firm on major issues like the war. We had the opportunity to make a stand with the Rice and Gonzalez nominations. Everyone says lets wait for a Supreme Court nominee to use the filibuster as if we only have one. We have been capitulating FAR too easily to things, especially since 9/11. I admit, we "pulled together" immediately after (possible natural) but, in that time they have handed us a quagmire, a restricted Constitution and our asses in the last election.

What do we have to loose by standing hard and fast against these types of things?

[meppie-meppie not]

59. I like your thinking on all counts! I have for too long wanted to see the

democrats grow a spine or at least learn to walk with the one they were born with. For the past couple of years I've been really questioning just how much of a party "for the people" the democrats really are. To me they have been found wanting in far too many areas to be considered such. A thirdie has definitely been a consideration of mine too. Kerry's early concession has made me wonder what he had to hide, why else throw in the towel to an election with so many illegalities and election "anomalies"? This party has lost so much it the past 8 years that they indeed have nothing to loose "by standing hard and fast against these types of things"! :hi:

[DaveinMD]

49. and

they couldn't have done that if the Nader voters voted for Gore. It wouldn't have been close enough for them to steal.

People who see no difference between the parties need to look harder. If they really believe that, they deserve the government they currently have.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. One vote.

One vote that cost thousands of lives to further her political ambitions. How casually you dismiss them. She also voted for Condi the great ambassdor of peace.

[DaveinMD]

50. because

there are thousands of other votes dealing with health care, taxes, the economy, and other issues that she votes the right way on.

And on that one vote she was misled just like the rest of us.

I prefer to keep the positive 90 percent rather than elect someone who will vote with Bush all the time.

[Teaser]

36. The record is skipping again.

damn I hate that.

[txaslftist]

47. I'm voting straight ticket dem like always. Hmmph. Purist.

[DistressedAmerican]

48. Fair Enough But, What If It Was A Ticket FULL Of Leiberman's

or Zell Millers? That can be a dangerous precedent to follow blindly.

[cestpaspossible]

51. That would indicate a failure on the part of the grassroots

to mount a successful primary challenge.

And at that point, it would be a simple matter of comparing the Democratic and Republican candidates to determine which you'd rather have representing you.

[DistressedAmerican]

53. Unfortunately, that lesser of two evil scenario is the choice every time

We have had a repeated failure to nominate strong candidates. We got your Mondale's, your Dukakis', your Gore's and now your Kerry's. If those weren't a failure of the grassroots to nominate a candidate we could actually support because we like him or her. Rather than because they are running against the other guy!

[Bridget Burke]

54. Living in Texas...

Even if all our Dem candidates were Leiberman-like, all the Republicans would be DeLay-like, or worse. No contest on where my vote's going.

There's the exception of Ron Paul, a Libertarian posing as a Republican--but I'm in Sheila Jackson Lee's district, not his.

[DistressedAmerican]

55. I guess if those are your only choices...

I guess that's the case in Zell Land as well. Who was the alternative to that fucking nutcase?

It is easier to be hard left when in a blue state.

[txaslftist]

58. My congressional choices were Stenholm and Neugebaur (sp)

A lot like Leiberman vs. Hitler.

Ergo. Stenholm (D), even though he is prolife, pro-religion in schools and pro-war.

Of course Hitler won.

[John_H]

56. Statistically speaking, yes. n/t

[w4rma]

57. Counter-productive. Get involved in the primaries instead of only

voting in the general.