kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:21 AM
Original message |
When is the best time to "weed out" some of these faux Dems? |
|
I would say it would be in the first congressional election in the first term of the Democratic President. Even if Republicans took over the entire Congress, we would still have the President in the White House to veto.
So, if you are thinking of a primary opponent or getting rid of a few "Democrats" that are hindering all progress, then you will not find a better time then the next Congressional election. Just my opinion.
|
T Wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:25 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Correct. In the same fashion that NOW was the best time for Obama to try and push |
|
liberal legislation. He has blown that opportunity. Here's hoping that we, the voters, do not make the same mistake in 2010 and let the DINOs slide through for another two (or six) years.
|
Iggo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The time is always now. (n/t) |
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Why do so many conservatives and progressives want to elect the opposite party |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Define "opposite" party? |
|
I would rather have a Republican than a Democrat that you could not trust or depend on to vote for democratic values or issues that we had been fighting for - for over sixty years. That is betrayal.
|
Kitsune
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
22. The problem is that voting Democratic seems to elect stealth Republicans pretty effectively. |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message |
5. you have a very naive view of what a president can do |
|
with John Bonehead as Speaker.
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
it is still better to have a Democratic President with a Repub Congress. Obama would be President for two more years after the next election. The alternative is to do nothing about these folks that vote against us and call themselves Democrats. They are not Democrats.
|
Nederland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message |
7. When you get tired of being in the majority? (nt) |
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 12:08 PM by redqueen
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
14. Oh, you are in the majority? |
|
I never would have guessed. :shrug:
|
salguine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message |
8. I'm beginning to doubt President Obama would veto anything a Republican Congress sent him. |
Jack Rabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Let's throw out the ideologically impure and shrink the party down to its base.
No, let's leave that for the tea baggers to do to the GOP.
|
geek tragedy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Better to have a Republican majority than to have |
|
moderate-to-liberal Democrats in charge, of course.
|
orwell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message |
11. I'll have what you're drinking... |
|
...cause that stuff is powerful.
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. And, I assume, you will always be happy with what you have got? |
|
If you don't have the courage to change, everything will be the same. Getting rid of two or three Republican sympathizers will not get rid of all the "moderates". Ben Nelson? You can have him. I would rather have a Republican.
|
andym
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:16 PM
Response to Original message |
13. In most of the districts, the only choices in the near future will be a conservative Dem or a Rep |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 12:17 PM by andym
That's because the constituents in the districts of most blue dog/conservative Dems are themselves moderate to conservative and won't elect a progressive/liberal Democrat.
So what good does removing the conservative Dems do?
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. Strange that in Louisiana.. |
|
The Republican had the courage to vote for the Healthcare bill but Mary Landieu, the Democrat, is thinking of voting against it. Same state. I think it is a myth that these states will not elect a progressive or liberal. If they have to choose between a real Real Repub and a fake Repub, they will probably choose the real one, just as Harry Truman noted.
|
izquierdista
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. Wasn't Huey Long from there? |
|
You know, "every man a king", said something like "it's not right for one man to take half the food at the picnic and leave half for everyone else". How did they ever vote for him??
|
Cessna Invesco Palin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
...who was quite happy to stand up against Standard Oil, but not quite so happy to stand up against the KKK.
|
andym
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-12-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
24. Most of the people who voted for the Kingfish are dead |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 02:00 AM by andym
Their descendants are decidedly more conservative.
But his long gone constituents voted for him not necessarily because they were liberal (although in economic matters they were far more progressive than their descendants), but because they lived in desperate times (more so than now), the rich were rightly blamed for the mess of the Depression, and Long was one of the greatest populists ever to live in America. He might have been the first "socialist" President had he lived.
|
andym
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-12-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
23. Not strange at all- Rep Cao has a liberal district,, Landrieu a conservative state. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 01:54 AM by andym
The republican in La represents one of the only liberal districts in the entire state in New Orleans. He replaced corrupt Representative William Jefferson. That seat should be held by a progressive Democrat. If anything he under represents the progressive nature of this constituents.
Landrieu represents the entire state, which even with the New Orleans oasis is overall a very conservative state. To some extent she is on the left side of average there. While being on the very right side of the national average for a Democratic Senator in 2009.
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message |
17. When you hold 75% majorities in both houses of Congress |
|
and 75% of the states.
Otherwise, it's self defeating as demonstrated by the actions of the base of the GOP.
|
earth mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Kick the fucking bums out! |
|
You are being far too kind and nice with your OP! :evilgrin:
|
Cessna Invesco Palin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-11-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
20. What makes you think "we" have the ability to weed them out? |
|
I suspect you may find that a lot of local Democratic Party organizations will not take kindly to uninformed outsiders assuming they can simply dictate which candidates should be supported in their own districts. Has it ever occured to you that perhaps the local party organizations have some knowledge of their own districts and the type of candidates who can win?
|
Hekate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-12-09 02:06 AM
Response to Original message |
25. Right damn now. Anyone who voted for the Stupak Amendment needs a primary challenge. |
|
That was the last straw for me, once it sank in. I was wrong to think it could be no worse than the Hyde Amendment, which is bad enough as the status quo. The Stupak Amendment is a complete betrayal on all counts: they fought like dogs to get it in the bill, and then they voted against the bill anyway. Well, to hell with the lot of them. :grr:
Hekate
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 03:16 PM
Response to Original message |