Who here would vote third party before voting for Feinstein?

[genius]

[davidinalameda]

1. I have before so I don't see a problem doing it next year

unless she makes a big improvement

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Missing option

Cast my vote as, "I would be willing to consider Feinstein depending on who are the other candidates." :thumbsup:

[genius]

4. Everyone who is considering running is more liberal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Personally, I don't care much about "liberal" or "conservative"

I have seen liberal candidates for office that I could not support in any way. I have seen a few conservatives (as distinct from neo-cons) whom I have supported with a clear conscience. I do what I can to cast an informed vote, not one based on labels or affiliation.

Since I know little about Feinstein (I've lived in Washington State for more than 10 years, after all) and nothing about her challengers, I don't feel qualified to answer Aye to any of the poll choices.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Who is 'considering' running?

:shrug:

[genius]

23. Cindy Sheehan is considering it and PDA is floating Mike Farrell's name.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. When has Sheehan ever said that she was considering running for office?

:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

3. Not from CA, but saw this this Morning, so FYI:

On High Court Vote, Centrist Democrats Caught in Middle
Roberts is qualified and likely to be confirmed, but they worry about the judiciary's direction.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

Excerpt:

One of those caught in the middle is California's Dianne Feinstein, the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a speech Wednesday to the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., she said that her vote would take into account concerns about the direction of the court.

"The court's rulings have both shaped and reflected the will and culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound," she told the audience at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel, listing racial integration, civil rights and personal privacy as examples. "In its role as the final arbiter, setting standards for all other federal courts, and being able to overrule past precedent, the Supreme Court holds a unique position."

>snip<

But for those Democrats who have staked out centrist positions, the decision is more delicate. Some, especially those in Republican-dominated states, are under pressure from constituents who like the reserved, soft-spoken nominee and argue that the president's reelection gives him the right to name whomever he likes.

Others who, like Feinstein, face reelection next year, worry about a backlash from more liberal constituents if they vote to confirm Roberts and he emerges as a force on the conservative side of the court.

Article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts25aug25,1,2452755.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[MindPilot]

8. This line says it all

"Others who, like Feinstein, face reelection next year, worry about a backlash from more liberal constituents..."

I guess she should have thought about that before pandering to the DLC and the corporatists.

[Pithy Cherub]

10. Yes! The time to let DiFi know we are not happy is now!

I will not be casting any further votes for DiFi. She went a bridge way too far to the right that was covered in dross by the DLC.

[Oerdin]

24. It really does get tiring

To hear the constant whining about the DLC by the extreme left of our party. Some of you seem to forget the far left can't win a much of anything in 90% plous of the the country and the only reason we've had a democratic president since 1980 is because the DLC forced the party center. Hell, Bill Clinton himself was behind the making of the DLC so prominent because he knew the PETA types were a drag on the party nationally. The DLC was Clinton's choosen vehicle to move the party back to the center which won us two elections and narrowly lost two others. If the last two candidates had been more convincing as centrists we would have won those as well.

[cascadiance]

25. No the DLC is note "moderate", it is "corporate".

No, the DLC didn't force the party center. The DLC forced the party CORPORATE! The DLC is trying to masquerade as being the "moderate" part of the party. Just because someone sees that the DLC doesn't represent PEOPLE's interests doesn't make them the "extreme left". The DLC has been used to keep the corporation's interests guiding each of the parties agenda, even if it conflicts with those of that party's constituency. Extreme left wing Dems, left leaning Dems, and moderate Dems can all have a catastrophe that can make them bankrupt (witness Katrina as an example), but these DLC people voted for our bankruptcy bill into effect against their interests. Why? Because corporations like the credit card companies wanted their tools like Biden to do so. These DLC congress critters were doing the corporations' bidding (NOT "moderate" voter bidding) in helping pass that bill.

The mixed messages that voting like that sends to the constituency of the Dems is what keeps so many from voting for our party. Rethugs at least are consistent with helping the elites (who overlap with corporate interests, because they are the ones behind corporate money anyway), and they are consistent in pushing RW fundie legislation, since the corporations don't care as much for the effects of what that sort of social legislation on them. What many core democrats want (whether it is liberal or moderate) is an alternative to corporate control over media, politicians, etc. and that IS a threat to them. That is why they want to keep wielding this DLC arm to control us, and as long as we accept that control even partially, that is what keeps many voters away from us. They don't know what the real message of the Dems are with the DLC corruption in place.

Get rid of the DLC, and get back to having a big tent that represents PEOPLE of both the left and moderate viewpoints! Have our party be accountable to PEOPLE and not corporations!

Clinton won his elections more because of his own personal attributes, not because of the DLC. A lot of the "corporate" DLC agenda didn't really take hold when he was elected anyway, at least not in the first election. What is obvious is that the Dems, with DLC control over the last few elections have been losing because of this split. The DLC is a cancer that must be removed for them to appeal to the liberals and the moderates and isolate the right wing and corporate types in the Republican Party.

[cascadiance]

5. If Medea Benjamin ran for the Greens again...

I might vote for her AGAIN! Didn't like Feinstein in 2000, and still don't like her in 2006. The only way I'll vote for Feinstein is if I see a real threat might win from the Rethugs if she doesn't get a vote. I will look for someone else decent and viable in the primaries.

[davidinalameda]

9. I would vote for anyone before voting for Medea Benjamin

let's just say she's not my favorite politician in the world

[genius]

18. She's a jerk. However, she's better on the issues than Feinstein

I still remember her using the 2001 counter-inaugural to attack Al Gore and an anti-Bush rally to attack Gray Davis. She's done good work since then, and my objections are to her tactics. I think she may have learned since 2001. She backed Dennis Kucinich for President and he's a DEMOCRAT.

[yurbud]

21. Why? I wrote her a letter begging her to run against Feinstein

[roody]

7. no Feinstein

John Kerry was the LAST vote I will ever cast for anyone who was stupid enough to give Bush war powers. Aside from the idiocy of this war, the Constitution allows that only the Congress can declare war.

[davidinalameda]

17. welcome to DU!

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Voting fior DiFi, you got to be kidding me

[genius]

12. Nominating Feinstein is a losing proposition. We need someone

people like.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. How does someone who people do not like keep getting reelected

time and time again? :shrug:

[laugle]

26. Because many people want to stay with her

because they think she is a safe bet. I say get rid of her now or risk having the same old shity congress or worse than we have now.

Why the hell can't we find better candidates to run against bad ones in the democratic party? Damn the pubs do it all the time.

The party had better get it together soon or we are doomed. A third party candidate would be a great equalizer in the congress to the lousy 2 party system, but people keep staying with the same old.

Remember, THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY is; doing the same thing again, but expecting different results....

Dump her now!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Third party systems lead to the fun that is going in in Germany right now

[Xithras]

15. I won't vote for her

She's let us down too many times, and we gain NOTHING by having her in that seat. I'd rather hand the seat to a Thug for a term to send the party a message than put up with this any longer. We've blindly kept Feinstein in that seat out of fear for far too long already.

[laugle]

22. No way I will vote for Diane Frankenstein again,

Nor would I vote for John Kerry, if he were the nominee again...which I don't see happening.

Wake up dems, you can't keep voting for lousy people just because they are dems. We all know this congress on both sides is corrupt as hell. How long are you going to let it go on??

The best thing, is to put up democratic alternatives. At best you will at least LIGHT A FIRE UNDER THEIR BUTTS!! Feinstein thinks she's safe....lite that fire now!!!

[hvn_nbr_2]

16. Depends

If it's close between Feinstein and a rethug, then voting third party is a vote to keep Bill Frist as majority leader and in charge of the Senate. When you vote, you don't just vote for the person whose name is on the ballot; you vote for the whole coterie that comes along with them.

[FrannyD]

19. Definitely not voting for her

I'm pissed off at myself that I did before. Live and Learn.

[EFerrari]

20. If I want a republican in office, I'll vote for a real one this time. n/t

[roody]

27. never

I will never vote for her again. I'll vote repub, green, or not vote for senator.

[political_invader]

28. A vote for Feinstein

Has been a wasted vote IMHO. As her voting record shows. The problem with voting her out with someone else we lose her tenure on comities

[Hatalles]

30. Sorry. I can't stand to see another Republican in office.

I'll grudgingly vote for Feinstein.

[lindisfarne]

31. Agreed. n/t

[dooner]

32. Even though she's coming out against Roberts

She's a republican to me. Couldn't vote for her ever again.