I will vote for any Democrat, when they're up against any Republican: Y/N?

[norml]

I will always let them know how I feel.

I might even oppose them in the Primary.

But I will never vote against the Democratic Party Candidate, unless they are a real right wing loon, and their opponent is not.

I will do whatever it takes to defeat the movement that calls itself conservative.

I see defeating Republican Party candidates as the best way to do that.

Fortunately not everyone has to think alike, at least not in our party.

Yeah I think we should just get out of Iraq.

I've been saying that for a long time.

I'll continue to work on changing public opinion, and hope that our leaders will follow.

[justinsb]

1. If I can't tell the difference, or the difference isn't enough to notice

I'll vote 3rd party. I won't support Republicans just because they put a D next to their name.

[Ladyhawk]

2. Yes, but eventually we have to purge the corporatists from our ranks. n/t

[MisterLiberal]

64. How about now?

Course the DLC has a bunch of money stuffed in the pockets of those who claim to represent us.

[etherealtruth]

3. "unless they are a real right wing loon, and their opponent is not."

I don't know how to vote? I'll Always vote for the more liberal candidate ...

Experience tells me that SOMETIMES Republicans from the north east can be far more liberal than Democrats from the south.

[abluelady]

15. But When Push Comes to Shove

We find they vote with their party. There are too many dirty tricks being played to depend on a republican politician's ethics.

[rock]

4. Yes, but I'm really tempted

to vote against the incumbent Dem in the primary.

[OneBlueSky]

5. no . . . not any more . . .

when there is a distinction with no difference, I may well vote third party, or not vote at all . . . I'm done voting for Democrats who are nothing but Republicans with hipper neckties . . .

[Eloriel]

6. I don't *DO* Loyalty Oaths

Period.

Nor am I stupid enough to make a promise or vow or whatever like the one you propose. There are some truly wonderful people who are -- or were -- Republicans. A FEW of them are here on this board. And there are some thoroughly disgusting Democrats -- Zell Miller, now retired, comes to mind. I'd vote for a principled, old-style Republican in a heartbeat over a Zell Miller.

[norml]

57. I'm just giving an opinion, and asking if you agree or disagree.

There's no need to feel bound by it.

I would've made the choices "Agree or Disagree?" instead of "Yes or No?" but there was only room to type out "Y/N?" in the title.

[castiron]

7. Yes with ONE major exception

if the Republican is an environmentalist and willing to act on global warming with emissions, etc, NOT market-based action, they automatically get my vote. A fascist would get my vote if their top priority was global warming and stopping it.

[TankLV]

8. Absolutely NOT.

EVERYBODY has to earn my vote this time around!

NObody should take my vote for granted.

If it's jomentumbiden, holyjoeLIEberman or someone like zellout, forgetaboutit! I would rather stay home than vote for a repuke or repuke-lite.

Unfortunately, my "unacceptable list" is getting longer these days as the vichy dems and dinos start to make their repuke views clearer with each new statement.

[speedoo]

9. I would not vote for someone like Biden against someone like Hagel.

I could probably cite several other examples, but my point is there are democrats who voted for the IWR for political reasons and I cannot support them blindly.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

22. Don't forget Hagel is, was an owner of one of the

problematic voting machine companies, E.S. & S.

They were used in Nebraska the year he won his seat in the Senate, being the first Republican in decades to win such a race.

[emulatorloo]

24. Hagel has an lifetime ADA rating of 3 Points, Biden has a rating of 72!

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesennebraska.html

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesendelaware.html

So how does it make sense to fill the Senate with Hagels and purge it of Bidens?

--------

ADA main page:

http://www.adaction.org/

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

27. Agreed

and there are others who are spoken of pejoratively here who also have high liberal ratings.

It seems that looking at a career of voting, action is a better basis for voting than some comments or one or 2 votes.

[CBHagman]

30. That would actually be working against progressive goals.

I don't think any progressive can afford to reject a candidate based on one issue and then -- and this is clincher -- either support and/or facilitate the rise of politicians whose agenda is plainly right wing. The fact that a McCain or a Hagel is more desirable (or, if you will, less repugnant) than a George W. Bush doesn't make a McCain or Hagel rise to power an assist to various progressive causes. You're in for a huge disappointment if you think that's the end result.

It's the Nader problem, the dog-in-the-manger problem, the One Person Purity Party problem. If Democrats are so busy deciding who deserves to be "purged" from their party that they exert all their engergy on vendettas, hissy fits, and the like, where is all the stuff that's supposed to be getting done for the people? Do you really want to go to your grave declaring how much you want to purge people with 95 percent ratings from Americans for Democratic Action and facilitate darlings of the American Conservative Union?

Please, people, view the current mess as a time of persecution and a time to get strong, not turn into a circular firing squad. With the notable exception of cranks like Zell Miller, there is a lot of talent and good will and decency in the Democratic Party. Let's think nurture and discipline, not "purges."

[speedoo]

50. I respect what you all are saying, but I cannot tolerate Biden..

still playing games around this War. The simple facts, IMO, are that Hagel is being truthful and courageous about an issue that involves the lives of our servicemen while Biden is still trying to finesse the issue.

That trumps everything else, IMO.

[CTyankee]

52. This site IS called Democratic Underground

At the end of the day, we have a party with a platform and that platform is worked out in thousands of back and forth negotiations before each general election. So it is our duty as progressives to make sure our party is as progressive as possible. When we have problems with Hillary or Joementum we have to do everything we can to raise the level of debate with them to hear our concerns. Carping on the sidelines, without more action, won't do anything. So let's get busy.

[speedoo]

55. Platforms mean little.

I'd rather put my energy into letting the party leaders know that I and many others believe they are no longer representing me. I was outraged when all these Dems supported the IWR and this is the first time I feel that they might be willing to reconsider their votes and stand up to The Coward.

Besides, there is no platform discussion until 2008. Why should we wait until then?

[CTyankee]

62. Oh, I disagree!

When the Repubs took the ERA out of their national platform in 1980 it was a watershed event. No longer would women's rights be consdidered a non partisan issue.

Without a statement of principles, parties can more easily deviate from party principles. Let's keep them on track, at all times. We must do it to preserve our liberty.

[mhr]

10. I Will Not Vote For Pro-War Democrats

eom

[emulatorloo]

20. What is a 'pro-war' democrat? Zell Miller?

I can not think of any democrat that has the true-believer pro-Iraq-war stance of Frist, Hastert, etc other than Zell or perhaps Lieberman.

[mhr]

40. Hillary Clinton

eom

[Coyote_Bandit]

11. I will always

consider character more important than any political agenda or issue. As a general rule dems are more altruistic, more interested in the common good and less greedy and self-serving than repukes. Personally, I think that money and its acquisition and use ia a far better criteria for the selection of political candidates than party affiliation. Money says more about character than almost anything else. And, no, I don't ask or expect anyone else to agree....

[kevinmc]

12. Is Zell Miller still classified as Democrat............

There has to be an exception to the rule. The Zell Miller Clause.

[norml]

54. Zell's not really a Democrat anymore. I mentioned reasonable exceptions.

"unless they are a real right wing loon, and their opponent is not"

[BillZBubb]

13. The current poll results show why we are LOSERS!

More people are saying no. How do you think a similar poll would look in Freeperland.

We are too caught up in the perfect to accept the better. Any Republican in any office is bad for progressives. They may be pretend "liberals" but they ALWAYS side with their party when the chips are down--ALWAYS. They endorse the right wing leadership. DINOs at least side with progressives on many key issues and vote for Democratic leadership.

I'll try to get rid of DINOs in the primary, but I sure as hell would never vote for a Repug against any Democrat. That's for losers.

[MasonJar]

14. At this time I cannot think of one single Republican that would be

worth a vote.

[BlueJac]

16. I vote no

Some of the Dems are neo-cons in sheep's clothing. D Murray Wa State
voted for CAFTA. People must keep a close eye on all candidates.

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. I'm not happy with Patty's vote on CAFTA, but she's hardly a neo-con

Now Cantwell, on the other hand, has been a major disappointment most of the time :(

[BlueJac]

47. Patty just makes you wonder some times

[soleft]

17. I would vote for Olympa Snow of CTWhitman over Lieberman or Miller

That's a scenario I could see - a socially liberal Repub over a pro-war converservative Dem, it could happen. But that choice appears so rarely.

[CBHagman]

37. There be can a price to pay even in that situation, though.

I understand that a Republican in, say, New England or the Pacific Northwest is not by any means the same animal as a Republican in Kansas or Mississippi. But bear in mind that even a liberal Republican will back the party leadership on most occasions, even if he/she votes with the Democratic side of the aisle on social issues and the like.

We had that problem with Connie Morella in Maryland. I remember arguing with people who claimed that Morella wasn't even a Republican (and apparently she played down her party affiliation in a big way). But when push came to shove, she had to answer to GOP leadership.

Today the 8th District has a hard-working liberal Democrat, Chris Van Hollen, in what was once Morella's seat. He was a dark horse but ran a positive campaign (Morella, sadly enough, went negative) and won the seat. And though the GOP will kvetch that the district had been redrawn to the Democrats' advantage, I'd argue that it's highly unlikely the Republicans could have held on to the seat with someone more in line with the party leadership. Morella belonged to a different era and had her time. Now we need more Chris Van Hollens abroad in the land.

[soleft]

51. I know, we face that now in NYC with Bloomberg

And even tho I think his performance post 9/11 merits him another term, I will never forgive him for bring the RNC to my city, no matter who his opponent is. You'd think NYC could put up a viable democratic candidate run, wouldn't you?

[blondeatlast]

18. I'm a yella dawg, but I can't possibly take such a vow.

Those of us in red states often don't have much of a choice; we MUST vote the lesser of two evils in order to protect our liocal governments.

If it's the wing-nut R versus the Goldwater R, and no legit progressive on the ballot (as often is the case--too often); the Goldwater guy gets my vote.

AZ is facing this issue now with our state Superintendent of Public Instruction; we've got a quality seen-the-light Republican running as a Democrat. He's got the right ideas and is 100% pro-public education.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

19. If it becomes a question of regaining the majority in Congress,

then maybe yes. Probably yes.

But I hope to never have to vote for a Zell Miller in order to further the values I believe in.

[mike_c]

21. no-- in fact there are a whole host of democrats that I'll work to defeat

...including one of my senators, Diane Feinstein. Having a D after your name is no pass if you support conservative causes.

[emulatorloo]

25. I'm sure the Republicant that replaces her will protect your interests

EOM

[mike_c]

41. that's a zero sum loss, isn't it, since DiFi certainly doesn't....

eom

[emulatorloo]

43. DiFi has an ADA lifetime rating of 86, your last few repugs 12, 14, 13

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesencalifornia.html

Knock yourself out defeating DiFi in the primaries...

But when it comes to the general I hope you will think twice about trying to get more repugs in.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

23. First we need a majority in the Senate and/or House!

Without that, there isn't much we can do. Like now, it is very hard to get any legislation passed that we favor.

Like the Holt bill, HR 550, on election reform.

So for that reason, I would definitely vote FOR a Democrat vs a Republican who might share my views more closely.

[Mark E. Smith]

26. Voted Yes

In my mind anyone who would vote their narrow political agenda while ignoring the greater threat the Republican Party represents to this country and the world needs to get in touch with a certified mental health professional.

I'm sick of "Me First" Democrats.

[Q]

28. This is NOT the definition of Democracy:

"I'll continue to work on changing public opinion, and hope that our leaders will follow."

We used to call them PUBLIC SERVANTS. They're paid with OUR tax dollars and they use to work for us. Now they work for Big Business.

It's strange that you seem to think that our leaders have the option of 'following public opinion'. They do indeed work for us and it's their duty and responsibility to REPRESENT the best interests of the people.

[npincus]

29. Kick my ass for saying this BUT, Republicans may be the ones

pushing to wrap up the war, and push B*sh to articulate a REAL (time line) exit strategy, to save their asses (hold onto their jobs and majority) in the 2006 elections, while WIMP-ASSED, DO-NOTHING SAY-NOTHING Democrats (with a few exceptions noted) wallow in regret for backing the war resolution, and refuse to lead the charge to end this immoral tragic war.

yes, those despicable GOP whores can smell which way the wind is blowing, while most Dems are clueless.

[MissWaverly]

31. Had to vote no

Many things have happened since 2000, I believe that those in power
both democrat and republican should be held ACCOUNTABLE for what happened on their watch, we have had serious issues, the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, the Supreme Court's unprecedented interference in a national election, the instigation of torture, the seizure of individuals who are held indefinitely w/o trial and military lawyers
at GITMO have come out and said the trials are bogus, there are people
who have been declared innocent at GITMO who are still being tortured
while they are waiting for a country to take them (the Chinese islamic
prisoners). The enormous debt, the gutting of social security: where
was Congress?????? What did they do to defend the constitution??????

[Sparkly]

32. I voted "YES."

I can't imagine ever vote for a Republican, given the danger that party now poses to this country.

Even if a Democrat isn't perfect, or just plain stinks, it's also about the majority in Congress -- the sheer numbers, the caucus, etc.

[BootinUp]

33. I think personal integrity

trumps party affilliation in some cases. Had to vote no.

[RandomUser]

34. No way in hell would I vote for Zell Miller

Is he still carrying a (D) around? Or has he finally switched to (R) or, more appropriately, (I) for Insane?

[Totally Committed]

36. "I will vote for any Democrat, when they're up against any Republican"???

Never again.

If the choice is between the "lesser fo two evils", I will not participate.

Never again.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

38. forget it ... policy before party ...

i see continued support for sell-out Democrats only getting us more of the same ...

our job is to build a movement, educate our elected "leaders" on what we believe is the right policy, let them know that we would greatly value their support on our issues, and fight against them as best we can if they refuse to represent us ...

appeasing the appeasers will never lead to change ...

[closeupready]

39. Party apparatchiks would like the rank-and-file to make it easy on them

but the leadership must lead and make it worth my while to vote for them, or else, yes, I'll "throw my vote away."

[Pithy Cherub]

42. NO! been there, done that, got the T-shirt in 5 colors and made

the return Chevy Chase road trip. Now Dems have to earn it!

[Pepperbelly]

44. Good Democrats at the Democratic Underground.

Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes? :sarcasm:

And how many of you who voted 'no' also want to purge those who you do not consider Democratic enough? Does Repug Lite ring any bells?

Fucking amazing. :eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I will never vote for a Republican as things stand now.

There was a time when there was much greater diversity in the Republican party, and maybe there will be again someday, but right now they are, in my view, simply a fascist party. I would have voted for Lowell Wieker over Joe Lieberman, but I don't see a scenario like that happening again anytime soon.

That said, I will not guarantee that I will continue voting for Dems who don't represent my values, just because they have a D after their name. Being a supporter of the Bush foreign policy agenda or the Iraq invasion is a deal breaker for me. I feel that unconditionallly supporting anyone just because they have a D after their name is merely an act of enabling, and not holding the party accountable. I can't continue to do that anymore.

[indigo]

46. no pro-life dems

I do not vote for 'pro-life' Dems.

[Demoiselle]

48. I'll support any Democrat who supports the Dem leaders

The majority party controls the agenda. Period. The saddest thing about this mess we're in is that the most vulnerable Republicans are usually the ones we see as the most decent. Link Chafee and others like him keep the right wing extremists in control.

[Dr Fate]

49. It's their turn to be loyal to the base- not the other way around. n/t

n/t

[loudsue]

53. Though they don't run in the same districts, I'd vote Ron Paul over

Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and any other supporters of the DLC, every single day of the year, and I'd try to vote twice!

:kick:

[Roland99]

56. I don't stick with any particular political party

[AtomicKitten]

58. wow

Trying to get folks left of center together IS like herding cats.
Not good.

[ElectroPrincess]

59. We're not talking "left of center" we're talking ...

"Corporate Loving" vs. "For the People" Democratic contenders.

I will always vote for the candidate who supports "The people" and "Small Business" over the GREEDY multi-national corporations.

Yes, the DLC is Corporate loving sell-outs! ... I would not vote for one in good conscious.

[splat@14]

60. IMO, thats how we lost the last election. We need to be able to vote

for someone, not by throwing our votes at several alternative options because we know who we don't want.

[Gyre]

61. I know a candidate who claims democratic party membership

when they voted for shrub and ahnold. Why? To win an election in a democratic district. So why should a person's claimed party membership alone make any difference?

Gyre

[Raiden]

63. Yes, at least until we have a stabile majority

Maybe then we can purge the corporatists

[BlueIris]

65. Yep. Only way I see to get progressive agendas accomplished.

At least at this time.

And I wouldn't have necessarily said that six weeks ago.