Hey "principled Dems," did y'all enjoy that abortion decision?

[Can o Beans]

I hope so. Cause that, my friends, is the direct result of "principled Dems" failing to pull the "D" lever in the voting booth because of their "principles."

If you want more SCOTUS decisions like that one, go ahead and vote for your quaint third party candidate or even stay home in November 2008. Me? I'll fight for my guy in the primaries, but there's a 100% chance I am pulling the lever for the "D" in the general election.

Cause that's what real principles look like. My principles are that I am tired of your principles setting us back a generation every time it comes time to vote.

Anybody with me?

[NoPasaran]

1. I'm with you!

:dem:

[Captain Hilts]

2. Well said, THIS is what happens when you don't vote for a Democrat.

Republicans count on all-or-nothing Democrats to opt out.

[Deep13]

3. Yep, always was.

The voting booth does not record how enthusiastic one is towards a candidate, but only which one is chosen. In Ohio, sometimes it doesn't even do that, though our new D. Sec. of State is fixing it.

[Clark2008]

4. Fine - pick a good candidate and we wouldn't have to worry about

it. We always settle for who the media likes, though.

THAT'S the problem.

[LSK]

6. and how much work did you do in the primaries???

:shrug:

[Critters2]

11. I worked long and hard in the last caucuses

Only to have my candidate smeared with the "unelectability" meme, by a candidate who proved to be unelectable.

Give me a principled candidate, and you'll get my vote for sure.

[Bridget Burke]

22. So--you'll withhold your vote until then? n/t

[Critters2]

25. I'll vote for the candidate who best represents my values

A real plan to get out of Iraq, preferably not someone who participated in getting into Iraq, strongly pro-choice, strongly pro-environment, etc.

I hope such a candidate is a Democrat. But if not...

[Bridget Burke]

38. You forgot Pro Gay Rights & Anti Immigrant Rights

Best wishes!

[kiahzero]

43. Then you'll help the Repubican win.

Good work.

[Critters2]

45. You're assuming we won't nominate an anti-war, pro-choice

pro-environment candidate? That's sad.

[kiahzero]

46. No, I'm not.

I'm saying that in the event that we don't, you'll vote for a third party candidate, thus increasing the odds of a Republican victory.

[Critters2]

47. If the "leadership" were worried about that, they'd work to nominate

an anti-war candidate. But they won't. They'll work to nominate an "electable" candidate. And electable candidates have a long history of not getting elected.

If a supporter of the war is nominated, I will almost certainly vote Green or Socialist. I DO NOT support this war.

[kiahzero]

48. So you'll vote to support Republicans.

Like I said initially.

[Clark2008]

12. TONS.

So much so, that my candidate not only remembers my son's name and asks about him, he also sent me a wedding gift (two years after he wasn't running anymore). How's that for doing a lot of work?

But the media ignored my candidate - completely - despite his actually beating Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed.

We ended up with - and will end up again with - milquetoast - and I LIKED Kerry - the front-runners this year? Ehhh... not so much.

[mondo joe]

21. Who wasn't good enough for your vote? Gore? Kerry? Bill Clinton?

Just wondering.

[blm]

5. This is what happens when UNPRINCIPLED Dem senators won't filibuster anti-choice judges.

And won't LEAD a filibuster against pro-fascist, anti-choice judges like Alito.

And won't get on TV and ENGAGE the public to pressure OTHER senators on why Alito was wrong for this nation's court.

[Critters2]

8. Exactly. Thank you nt

[Can o Beans]

10. With a D in the oval office, Scalitoberts never even happens

If you have real Dem principles, you cut those types of nominations off at the source, before they even become considered.

All you have to do is pull that D lever every single time. But some of our crowd are just too weak to do that.

[Can o Beans]

13. If you're talking filibuster, you've already lost the war

Truly principled Dems don't allow thugs to get nominated in the first place.

[blm]

15. and some of our Dem senators are too weak to stand by Dem principles even when

they CAN CONTROL their own vote.

It only took 41 votes to filibuster, and 42 Dem senators voted against Alito. They could have stopped it - the Dem leaders and influential Dem voices would not take this battle on in any PUBLIC way and instead joined WITH the GOP media in attacking Kerry for leading the filibuster with Kennedy.

[The Count]

27. That was certainly a big part of this. But Democrats voting for the bill/abstaining

cannot be let off the hook either.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

they certainly shouldn't have the chutzpa to issue statements about how displeased they are.

[uppityperson]

30. Exactly and thank you.

[BlooInBloo]

7. NARAL needs to be defunded.

[mmonk]

9. We had enough to filibuster

if the dems had held together if I remember.

[Crowdance]

14. Here are the "principled" Dems who voted for the anti-abortion bill.

Senate: Bayh (D-IN), Breaux (D-LA), Byrd (D-WV), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND), Daschle (D-SD), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Reid (D-NV)

House: Alexander, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boyd, Carson (OK), Clyburn,Cooper, Costello, Cramer, Crowley, Davis (AL), Davis (FL), Davis (TN), Dingell, Doyle, Etheridge, Ford, Gordon, Hall, Hill, Hinojosa, Holden, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kennedy (RI), Kildee, Kleczka, Lampson, Langevin, Lipinski, Lucas (KY), Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre,
McNulty, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey,Ortiz, Pascrell, Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Rahall, Reyes, Ross, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Sandlin, Skelton, Spratt, Stenholm
Strickland, Stupak, Tanner, Taylor (MS), Turner (TX), Visclosky

You'll want to check the Alito cloture bill to obtain an even larger roster of "principled" Democrats.

Is THAT what real principles look like?

To parallel your language: I'm tired of their lack of principles setting back generations of women, my daughters included.

The "D" next to the name is not a guarantee of principle, and we all shirk our duty when we allow anti-choice legislators to represent this party.

[The Count]

28. You missed the princilpled Dems who didn't vote against:

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)

[Crowdance]

39. I did. This part really bothers me.

I'd like to be able to support Edwards, but it's difficult with this on his record. I had the same problem with Kerry.

[Zandor]

-

-

[Zandor]

-

-

[Zandor]

35. Could you list the Dems voting against it?

It was a lot more than those that voted for it. Of course, just the oppostite with the Repugs.

[Crowdance]

40. I don't have that list, but you can get it on Thomas. n/t

[jsamuel]

16. your argument is terrible, but I agree we need to vote for Dems in the general election

As far as principles are concerned, that's what primaries are for.

[Fly by night]

17. Wrong. This is what happens when our votes aren't counted as they were cast.

The American people kicked Bush in the ass in the 2004 election, but Rove and his DRE-sidekicks flipped the vote.

Don't blame the American people for this lawless administration that refused to accept that the consent of the governed had been withdrawn from them in November, 2004.

I won't blame the American people unless Bush declares martial law in 2008, suspends voting and refuses to leave office -- and we fail to respond en masse as required.

Until then, push for impeachment and keep your powder dry.

[endarkenment]

18. Actually I thought it was the failure of our leadership

to stand up and fight for us when it really counted, back when Lieberhole and friends 'compromised' a surrender to avoid nothing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

A sentiment I agree with.

[cmd]

20. Thank you! Great post. n/t

[warren pease]

23. Well, that's logical as hell

The usual nonsense about blaming a third-party candidate -- who attracts people because they're absolutely sick of watching the dems and pukes pretend to oppose each other while actually striving for the very same imperialist american empire -- for the enabling Vichy dems and the subhuman repukes.

I agree that the best time to express outrage is in the primaries, and that realpolitik suggests that, no matter how nauseating they are (and see yesterday's item about making a withdrawal timeline "advisory" for the latest nauseating example), dems are still better than the most moderate member of the GOP.

Still, there's something fundamentally insane about having to vote for an odious BushCo suck-up, and giving up on people who might actually be able to make a difference, just to keep americans' baseline political positions from slipping so far to the right that Savage might have to stop bitching and admit victory.

So the result is that "politically savvy" people know how to cut their losses, while the "hopelessly naive" tilt at windmills and are doomed to continued non-representation in this country.

That people could actually break this cycle by helping to fund the campaigns of these chronically impoverished populists never enters the discussion. And that's probably because we're poisoned by TV's glee in covering things like Edwards' hair, but not his position on health care. And that means Kucinich, who represents a completely different kind of politics than do mainstream democrats, is black listed and completely absent from the "approved" american political discourse.

So first, kill your TV. Then empty your pockets and give it all to a candidate who most closely represents your values. Then work for that campaign as if your life depended on it -- because, realistically, it does, given the sorry state of the democratic party and the Hitler youth running the GOP.

Kidnapping an HMO CEO for ransom, symbolism and a little fun would also be a good idea, but I understand that's frowned upon in our polite, non-violent, law-abiding, egalitarian meritocracy -- where anyone can grow up to be president. And wouldn't you know it, anyone actually did. Unfortunately he's an imbecilic sociopath, but you can't have everything.


wp

[Bandit]

24. Wasn't it Democrats that allowed both Scalito and Roberts to be confirmed

Democrats have been enablers for over a Decade now...Why should we support them?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. Agreed.

[The Count]

29. I voted "D" in 2004, 2006 - but my 2004 candidates failed to vote against

the abortion ban bill which is the base of this decision
Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

(mind you, I voted "D" before that as well - but trying to make a point)

[Buzz Clik]

33. Excellent post.

[tabasco]

31. Great post!

How can people be so arrogant, obtuse, and short-sighted?

[Forkboy]

49. I wondered the same thing reading the OP.

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

32. That's REALLY misguided.

That bill never gets to the Supreme Court if the Congressional Democrats we voted for voted against that bill.

You can blame Bush is you like or blame those who didn't vote for Gore (or Kerry), but the bottom line is that the bill was toast without Democratic support. And that really pisses me off.

[wryter2000]

34. Agreed!

While I'm in utter and total agreement with your statement, let's also remember that a filibuster might have kept Alito from the Court. "Keeping our powder dry" (aka behaving in out of political expediency) is also a problem.

[Hepburn]

36. Count me in....

....the ONLY protection we have for our freedoms and rights is to make sure that come Nov 2008, no stinking (R) is elected to sit in the WH.

I worked for Kucinich in 2004...until Kerry was nominated and I damn well went and worked for him and voted for Kerry even tho he was NOT the candidate I favored the most.

Yes, it does matter if one votes for a third party which has NO chance of winning. Look at this USSC decision of yesterday and NEVER forget.

[Zandor]

37. Democrats Voted Against it 30-16

Republicans voted for 47-2, by my count.

Pull the 'D' lever

[mdmc]

41. silly!

We are where we are cause we won't stand for what we believe.

The 2000 Gore didn't fight for the environment. Leiberman and Gore could have done better.

Al From thinks Nader helped Gore in 2000. The DLC thinks Gore would have lost by more without Nader in the race.

Radicals didn't do this to us. We did this to us. Dems voted for Bush over Gore. Over Kerry. Honestly.

There will always be a radical fringe. Don't blame it for the failure of triangulation.

[Generator]

42. Hello irony

It's what you get when you vote for Democrats that vote with Republicans. What a party! Hey that sounds like a good name for a book.

[DancingBear]

44. Bullshit

Yawn.

Another loyalty oath.

If you say it enough times maybe SOMEONE will believe you - I sure as hell won't.

BTW, if there were any "principled Dems" in the sorry group of the let's pretend opposition they would have filibustered Alito and/or Roberts and then perhaps this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Of course, blaming A for the shortcomings of B IS the American way.

"It's their fault, mommy, they didn't vote for my guy!"

"But they liked somebody else better, sport, and they voted for that person."

"Waaah! Waaah! Not fair! Not fair!"

So kindly take you canard and, well, stuff it.

Oh, and you haven't a clue what real principles stand for.

But your definition WAS funny, so you get points for that, anyway.

[Jacobin]

50. That' odd. I recall Lieberman voting for Alito and Roberts

Among a lot of other 'democrats'