Senator Franken To DU: "No matter how frustrated you are, you can't check out now"

[kpete]

Franken implores activists at Netroots convention to fight
By Kevin Bohn, CNN

.....................

"You really haven't gotten your moneys' worth," he said, specifically mentioning such ideas as a public option government-run health care plan or education reform or public financing of elections.

"I know progressives are frustrated...because it feels at times not everyone in our party is pushing at the same pace," he said.

He told them, however, that several of the bills that have been passed in this Congress -- such as the health care overhaul or Wall Street reform -- have helped the nation and were stronger because of their efforts.

"No matter how frustrated you are, you can't check out now," Franken said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/25/netroots.franken/index.html

[bluethruandthru]

1. It helps knowing Franken and a few others are in there fighting for us.

Sometimes it's good to remember that.

[daleanime]

4. +1

nt

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Yes nt

[Mad_Dem_X]

133. +1

[UTUSN]

2. K&R #7 n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Well, I will vote Dem again

because of the lack of choices for all the good it will do here in redstateville. And not voting is NOT an option. When it comes down to it, we (apparently) need a LOT more Dems in office than just a simple majority. I say shoot for 67 Senators before giving up hope.

[nxylas]

115. Depends on the senators

47 Frankens or Graysons > 67 Ben Nelsons.

[BEZERKO]

150. Well said!

That's kind of what I was just thinking. If he means supporting people like Franken, John Lewis, Feingold, etc., then fine. I'm behind them all the way. But if he means supporting people like John Barrow or Jim Marshall (I live in Georgia), then no way! It depends on the representative.

[creon]

137. vote

I will vote Democrat. Make it emphatic, vote straight Democratic. I will "vote the way I shot."
The GOP is devoid. Period.
We do not have PR. We have what we have: single member, first past the post districts; party primaries to nominate candidates; no three line whips, thus weak party disipline. All that makes it very difficult for a third party to get any traction.

Prgressives have to progessives nominated in congressional and senate primaries, and get them elected in the general election.

You want a progressive majority in Congress ? Elect them to office!

[givemebackmycountry]

5. This guy - I'll go to war with this guy...

Him and Grayson, I got their backs ten days to Sunday.
Because they will get in your face and they don't take any shit from nobody.
And they have no problem calling the right out, and humiliating them when the opportunity calls for it.

These are two guys who do not bring plastic picnic forks to a gunfight.
I want them in my foxhole.
Anytime, anywhere.

[Forkboy]

6. Al has done well.

[FredStembottom]

7. I'm frustrated. I'm attacked by the Sensible Woodchucks but....

... we fight in the primaries for a better type of Democrat.
General Election: we pull the lever for the D's so that we can fight again.
If R's get elected.... we all just go to jail.

[glitch]

12. Yes. And fight for fair elections, otherwise our primaries and generals will get hijacked. nt

[Crystal Clarity]

43. By "Fair Elections" I assume you mean Publicly Financed Elections?

Good luck getting anyone on here to listen to you despite the fact that Publicly Financed elections would solve a guesstimated 85% to 90% of the problems so many people on DU worry about. Including me. I've been posting about this ad nauseum since I got here in April... I've only posted 2 threads in GD so far and that subject was one of them... got 3 replies. Everyone was too busy discussing (ironically)Dem. politicians corrupted by corporate money influences that day.

I see that you are from California where the act passed by your state assembly was struck down by voter initiative in 2008... I hope you guys keep trying. It's worked well in my state for nearly a decade now. If we can get more states to do this, it'd be much harder for the federal government to reject it. And if we were to see it on the federal level... it'd do wonders for REAL change.

I was hoping that Al Franken mentioning his advocation of it in THIS OP might help, but so far, you're the first person I've seen even mention it and I've read most of the posts. :-(

Clean Elections
"Clean Elections" (variously called, "Clean Money," "Voter-Owned Elections," or "Fair Elections") is term used to describe a particular system of government financing of political campaigns used in a small number of states and local political jurisdictions in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. Clean Elections was passed by normal legislative means in Connecticut in December, 2005. Two municipalities, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon in 2005 adopted Clean Elections for municipal elections.


In 2008, a Clean Elections bill, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. To take effect, however, the law had to be approved by voters in an initiative in June 2010. On June 8, 2010, California voters defeated the measure by 57% to 43%. <4> An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was also defeated in California in 2006, by 74% against to 26% in favor. A Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 64% to 35% margin in August 2008,.

In April of 2010, the Colorado Initiative Title Setting Review Board approved the text of a Proposed Initiative #53 on Campaign Finance, and signature gathering began.

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates wishing to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

Because candidates may refuse government funding and continue to rely on voluntary contributions without spending caps, supporters have argued that Clean Elections measures do not run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech but also affirmed that elections can be publicly financed. However, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission has cast doubt on the constitutionality of Clean Elections laws that provide "rescue funds" to participating candidates outspent by privately funded candidates.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine since 2000. A majority of candidates accept the grants rather than raise private contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators ran with government subsidies provided by a Clean Elections Program.<8> In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house. In 2006 both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor of Arizona ran Clean Elections campaigns. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the Clean Election System.

Differences from traditional reforms
Clean Elections is a form of campaign finance reform.

Unlike traditional campaign finance laws that focused primarily on restricting spending and placing caps on campaign donations, Clean Elections laws provide a public grant to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, which usually includes collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most Clean Elections programs, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign grant, "Clean Candidates" must forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds. Candidates who choose not to participate are subject to limits on their fundraising, typically in the form of limits on the amounts of contributions they may accept and the sources of those contributions (such as limits on corporate or union contributions), and detailed reporting requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections

[glitch]

49. I also mean paper ballots publicly counted. Remove the corporate-owned machines from the vote tally.

All the way from the precincts to the central tabulators.

[Enthusiast]

124. I thought that was your meaning.

Obviously campaign funding won't mean a thing if the machines are rigged. Like you I have no faith voting machines. We need both publicly funded campaigns and paper ballots.

[laughingliberal]

60. +1000 nt

[robdogbucky]

162. This post reminded me of 1998

or thereabouts, when Fred the Actor Thompson convened hearings to discuss possible election reforms. Guess what happened? Ariel Sharon marched into Temple Mount and Monica Lewinsky surrendered a blue dress w/jizz on it.

My, how far we have come. And what ever happened to Thompson's committee's efforts? 9/11, Diebold/Sequoia, etc., etc., etc.

That was just the ramping up of the next ad campaign, better known as the Bush II Administration.


As I recall it.





Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Kind of Blue]

16. Wow! I wish I said that.

Encapsulate the frustration and still give good reason for voting D.
KnR this response if I could.

[blondeatlast]

28. Sums it up perfectly. k/r the thread, would like to do the same for your post. nt

[bvar22]

41. "we fight in the primaries for a better type of Democrat."

Especially frustrating when you have to fight the White House, Ex-Presidents, and the DSCC who are out campaigning FOR Republicans (Specter) and Anti-LABOR Conservative Blue Dogs in Democratic Primaries.

I Live in Arkansas, and there is no way I can pull the lever for the White House endorsed Anti-LABOR, "Kill the Public Option and Laugh about it" Blanche Lincoln.

[moriah]

119. So you'd rather pull the lever for Boozman?

Because sitting out in a midterm election is pretty much doing exactly that, given that turnout is so important in midterm elections. I'm currently his constituent up here in NWA and I can tell you at least Blanche at least reads my letters. If enough of us write her she will change her mind about various things -- she has before.

But Boozman? No way.

He is a true neocon and has only responded positively to ONE letter I've ever wrote him.... asking for funding for the National Center for Missing Adults, and including in it missing person's cases they were working on in his district in Arkansas at the time, telling him he was as much their representative as he was mine. Since it was a bill that he could look tough on crime by supporting, he did and actually bothered to write me a letter that wasn't a standard form letter in response. (One of those missing people I mentioned, BTW, has recently been determined to be deceased and her killers are in jail now... Goldie Thornsberry, who had disappeared in 1996. Go THV for airing cold case segments! They had found her body in 2000 but had been unable to identify her until one of her neighbors saw the facial reconstruction they had done on the news...)

Not a single other letter has he EVER responded to positively, even ones where I put as much work into personalizing them as I did that one. None of them merited anything other than the standard form letter response.

I'd rather have a Senator who will vote with liberal issues 69% of the time per ProgressivePunch and might actually listen to me when I ask her to vote a certain way on an issue, than one who will never vote for a truly progressive cause even if I begged on my hands and knees.

[HughMoran]

138. You're one of those in a close election that could give the Senate to the Republicans

You'd be losing more than one admittedly crappy Democrat.

How utterly impractical.

[Raineyb]

154. What's impractical is stumping for a candidate in a primary that has a lesser chance of winning

which is exactly what the White House did.

[HughMoran]

155. & complaining and stewing about what's in the past is very helpful

Who cares who they stumped for - I supported her opponent with my hard earned cash even though I live over 1000 miles from Arkansas and he lost. Do you hear me whining about that? No - I've moved on to fight the next fight.

[bvar22]

170. The White House torpedoed the Democrat who could have beaten Boozman.

Not the Pro-LABOR Democrats.
Hang THIS one around Obama's neck.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[HughMoran]

171. How lame to blame the WH for his loss

I would never do something like that - it pains me to see people making such claims just so they can have 'street cred' as a so-called 'progressive'. :eyes:

As Skinner said - we're all progressives here.



Here's your 'pragmatic' Wellstone for ya:


<snip>

'Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstone’s legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasn’t afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. That’s where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend( Frances Fox Piven) writes:

But to be pragmatic is not a bad thing. It is not the same as rank opportunism. To the contrary, pragmatism is the very essence of a political calling, for it means to make the most of the means available to further the ends of politics. The question always is, what ends? Paul viewed politics as a moral enterprise, grounded in basic convictions about democracy, equality, community, and mutuality. Those convictions guided his career in the Senate and shaped the compromises he made.

We need more of Wellstone’s pragmatism and less of Feingold’s rank opportunism. Maybe then we wouldn’t be facing the defeat of financial reform at the hand of the junior Senator from the state of status quo."


http://bluewavenews.com/2010/06/28/feingold-will-vote-to-protect-wall-st-from-financial-reform/

[bvar22]

175. You are entitled to your opinion,

but not your facts.

I KNEW Paul Wellstone.
He was NOT a Republican Appeasing Centrist,
and your attempts to claim him as one is an insult to his memory.

If he were alive today, you and your friends would be demonizing him the same way you demonize
Feingold and Kucinich.

Have you no shame?


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

[HughMoran]

178. Mischaracterizing what his friend said about him as if I said it

is extremely pathetic.

You knew Paul Wellstone :eyes:

[dionysus]

182. yeah, i laughed at that too.

[moriah]

117. That's pretty much it right there.

Primaries are the time when we have a duty to advocate, strongly, to elect the person we think will be best for the office.

Once the primaries are over, however, it's time to rally to the nominee -- and get them elected so we can try again next time and don't go backward. I don't understand at all the people who think any Democrat losing in the general can be good for our party or our country.

[TBF]

130. No that's not it.

That is why DUers stumble around confused. Voting is NOT the end all to be all. Sure, go vote in the primaries and pull all the D levers, for the most liberal candidates you can find.

THEN, you need to actually do some work. We need protests, people on their feet, to make any kind of impact at all in this country. Voting rights, Civil rights, Workers rights... we didn't get any of these without working for it.


Women's Suffrage - 1920's


Flint Sit Down Strike - 1930s


Civil Rights - 1960's
?w=499&h=276

[moriah]

131. When I said "it" I did not mean all....

... but that the post made the point very well that we need to stand unified in general elections.

As far as protesting and groundwork, count me in -- I already have been, as a trained legal observer. I miss not being in NYC where the protest movement was stronger, but it doesn't mean it can't happen even in Podunkville, Arkansas.

[TBF]

132. Exactly - we all need to stand together, no matter which city

or hamlet we're in. Voting is just the first step. I do feel we accomplish nothing by sitting out. Some would disagree with me. I suggest we vote and then continue our work from there. The more important work is on our feet.

[HughMoran]

139. Nailed it

That's absolutely the only way we can continue to move forward or 'progress'.

[FredStembottom]

183. Thanks , Moriah!

I think what you said is good strategy at anytime. But right now, the Other Party has actual raving lunatic cult-group members at all levels!!!! Imagine the vindictive return to power!!!!

Sometimes, just preventing a really bad thing from happening is Job #1.

[Kahuna]

186. Best post on DU in a very long time. Short and to the point.

:applause:

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

8. Franken has the balance nailed

He knows how to speak rationally at the same time he's giving us the catharsis we so desperately need to not feel abandoned. And I'm not accusing him of double-speak, either, he delivers both catharsis and important information with honesty. Weiner and Grayson do the same thing, and I love them for it.

*channels my completely unapologetic hippie upbringing*

Truth to power, man.

[WheelWalker]

50. You put that SO well. Thank you.

Blessings.

[Enthusiast]

125. Me too. nt

[Mad_Dem_X]

134. I've long admired him for that

He is able to speak the truth in a no-nonsense, rational manner. The other Dems need to look to him to see how to get things done!

[HughMoran]

144. Yes he does

I'm especially enjoying those who called him a 'centerist' when he had his radio show now singing his praises.

I never liked his humor, but I always admired his pragmatism.

[bobbolink]

9. "Can't"? Watch us.

[USArmyParatrooper]

48. Bye

[bobbolink]

78. By all means, say "bye" to millions of voters. That's another clever chess move.

Then, after sending millions of voters packing, and feeling ever-so-smug about it, you can bemoan all the "ignorant" voters come November.

Foot, meet gun.

boom.

[treestar]

104. It would not be millions

Just a few thousand.

[bobbolink]

156. Keep deluding yourself. Since you refuse to listen to people, there are millions you are not

hearing.

Novemeber will tell, won't it?

[dionysus]

161. we know how much you want us to lose in november now, don't we?

[treestar]

188. Yes it will

If those millions existed, Kucinich would have won and there would be left wing Senators.

[dionysus]

160. there aren't even close to that many of you.

:rofl:

[WheelWalker]

51. I don't understand.... what's your plan?

[Lil Missy]

127. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Bye.

[dionysus]

159. bye. don't write.

[saltpoint]

187. Let us know if you want a ride to the bus station.

[Parker CA]

10. Franken, Grayson, Weiner, and Dean. We need to clone em all. K&R although it kept it at 18.

[wial]

102. you know, that brings up an idea

I presume is already being acted on, but I think it should become central: can't we have Dean, Grayson and Franken start endorsing candidates at all levels? Maybe a few others too, e.g. Feingold? They could be called "blue chip democrats" as in top quality and chips off of top quality. Grayson is bright enough to recognize others of his caliber. Maybe it's time the best dems do a little going Galt of their own given the inertia of the rest of their party. (Don't get me wrong, I think Rand and her followers are pretty appalling, just trying to get a point across).

[midnight]

105. Feingold does support the blue chip candidates via his

patriots fund.

[Edweird]

11. "not everyone in our party is pushing at the same pace"

From where I sit it looks to me like a lot of people aren't pushing the same DIRECTION - never mind the 'pace'.
There are too many 'sensible pragmatists' advocating RW policy.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

20. Exactly. (n/t)

[ibegurpard]

23. thank you

i repeated this sentiment downthread

[JoePhilly]

26. And if we stay home, you'll have far more pushing in the wrong direction.

Al understands that the democratic party is not as monolithic as the GOP is.

I think the better analogy is a tug of war. Currently, the GOP pulls BACKWARDS ... we have some folks pulling forward, some sideways, and some just hanging on the rope ... if we let the GOP gain seats, we'll start moving backwards again, just like we did from 2000-2006.

Can't let it happen.

Its going to take time to replace the consrerva dems with more Frankens and Graysons.

[NYMdaveNYI]

58. Dems should do fine if we get the message out that....

we’re digging America out of the hole, while the GOP is throwing the dirt back in, and shitting into the hole.


There’s a LOT for the DNC to exploit about the Republicans, they just need to advertise it.

[JoePhilly]

92. The problem ... we suck at "the message" ...

First we have to call the right wing shill our friend, then we have to agree with something silly they said ... then we waffle some ... and then start to address the issue ... which is when David Gregory or Wolf or any other interviewer interrupts.

I watched meet the press today ... saw this over and over. The right wing hack babbled incoherently and David Gregory sat their like a stuffed puppy .... the Dem woman made the mistake to taking a tiny breath after agreeing with some MINOR point, and Gregory interrupted her.

The Dems have to learn message discipline. Learn the phrase, say the phrase, then repeat the phrase 3 more times regardless of what you are asked.

[Enthusiast]

126. Thank you, JoePhilly.

You make an excellent point.

[Crystal Clarity]

42. Including Franken himself based on this article

are you accussing him of being RW also? :shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

13. Watched the speech live. Even though I live in Texas, that is MY Senator. nt

[Arkana]

14. "Blogosphere to Senator Franken: Fuck off, we like complaining more."

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Davis_X_Machina]

32. The truth is an absolute defense against libel. n/t

[tranche]

44. I'll stick a pacifier in a baby's crying mouth not because I want to win him over.

It's because I'm tired of listening to the fucking tantrum. Oh, by the way -- the baby never really goes anywhere.

[snooper2]

152. No, you stick the pacifier in the baby's mouth to help ease the pain

associated with teething...

So the baby feels comfort :)

[spoony]

46. They use neither so they can win neither.

All they've got is the contempt you noted. It's all over the place here. People, on DU (on the internet), slamming people on the internet as not real, not important, not the base, not sensible, etc etc. It's crazy.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

64. Go ARKANA, Go!!

:applause:

[renate]

77. "We don't turn down a drink of water in the desert because it wasn't Perrier"

Very nicely put.

Things haven't changed as much as I'd hoped they would back in November 2008, but it's easy to forget just how deep in the slough of despond this country was. And why do so many on our side blame Democrats for failing to achieve the impossible rather than blaming the Republicans who reflexively said "Hell no" to every damn thing that the Democrats proposed simply because Democrats proposed it? Who knows what could have been accomplished if they weren't such wide-open gaping assholes--it's not Democrats' fault. Progressives' disappointment at the performance of many of our Democratic representatives is nothing compared to the "disappointment" we'll feel if people sit on their asses and refuse to vote for anything that isn't an ideologically pure slate in the midterms.

[defendandprotect]

90. What we need is more Democrats saying "hello no" to adopting the GOP agenda . . .

Whether attacking Social Security and Medicare with the "Cat Food Commission" --

or using Arne Duncan to close down public education with Bush's LNCB or charter schools!


The "Perrier, Ponies, Chess game" arguments here from a few have to ignore a great deal

of legitimate challenge from liberals/progressives -- certainly not only as reflected at DU --

but in the wider world! And that sadly is what they would like to do -- ignore.

If you read any of the post at DU, citing personal tragedies, unemployment, long term

unemployment, the stress of waiting for unemployment renewal -- you understand rather than

make fun.

And if you read any of the personal stories here -- and what we're aware of in homelessness

and poverty in America -- 50 MILLION without health care insurance and the emergencies

and lack of care that results . . . you understand and you don't try to make fun of it.




:)

[Raineyb]

97. No one is asking for Perrier. But you can't expect to hand someone water

that's been pissed in and expect them not to turn it down then accuse them of wanting too much. Well you can but it's not reasonable.

[laughingliberal]

63. I've been considering for a while that winning us over is not a goal.

Insulting, belittling remarks which seek to minimize the concerns of the left seem to me to be, in part, a voter suppression effort. I have considered that many who engage in this actually are working for more Republican seats in Congress and the Senate.

What better way for the 'centrists' to push us further right and give the President more cover for moving right. Won't take nearly the amount of pretzeling we've seen while Democrats held large majorities.

Double plus good bonus: they could then sit back and blame the liberals while the President moves further right.

[defendandprotect]

74. Agree . . .

co-option of the party is intended to move it to the right --

and to get the left to shut up --

[liberation]

79. With "friends" like these pragmatists who needs virulent enemies?

The lefties need to get the memo that centrist and moderate conservatives just want our votes when it is convenient for their preferred team, and to shut up. Unless they need us to cheer, in which case we must do it willingly and loudly, else we will also be blamed if their team loses.

I am always fascinated though as to why the center-right feels entitled to the unconditional support of the left, yet any attempt by the left to further liberal causes/interests/policies are viewed by the center-right as open hostility against them (the center-right "pragmatist" brigade)

[LooseWilly]

112. The Republicans have shown the way- vote "NO", and the Democrats will come around

I mean, what could be more obvious?

[bobbolink]

165. Absolutely it is voter suppression. When any of us says this derision will negatively affect the

Nov. outcome, they gleefully continue, and give out the ole "don't let the door hit you in the ass" ugly shit.

That is the same thing the RW said to us, and in the same tone. What is the difference?

I lived through the time of "America, Love it or Leave It". How is this any different?

The RW called us traitors, and now we get the same thing from the loyalty oathers. What is the difference?

For 8 years we made fun of the RW "Echo chamber" but now that it is the other side of the aisle that is echoing, how is that any different?

For 30 years we have been treated with derision by the RW, yet we are now supposed to toe the line when this side of the aisle is derisive to us? How, pray tell, is that any different.

Yes.... voter suppression.

Its quite clear.

[defendandprotect]

71. My advice to the left is . . ."keep at it!" and "it's probably not loud enough yet" --

Notice this time around at least we didn't get called

"f---ing retards" by Emmanuel -- !!

[SunsetDreams]

113. If you are going to quote at least do it correctly

It was "Fucking Retarded". I am DEFINITELY not a Rahm fan, but this quote is taken out of context.
A few(mind you a few) democrats at that meeting said that they were going to start airing ads against Conservative Dems.
When you consider, that chances are, you will not be able to get a Progressive IN over those Conservative Dems, in those RED districts where most of them come from, it seems counter productive. While his choice of words were over the top, he is right in this instance.

While I don't care for Conservative Dems, they are a necessity right now, in order to get ANY legislation across. The Republicans are blocking everything. What needs to happen is getting a bigger majority, and that means picking off Republican seats, in toss up disticts, and/or unsafe seats. Going after the Conservative Dems, is not the way to go, especially if they are in RED districts. That is a waste of time, energy and money. We needs more Left leaning democrats, but you won't get one from a Red district.

[Yuugal]

136. That is how it seems to you maybe...

The strategy of the progressives is sound. If you put a dino in that seat then that dino will sell out to the corps and have a 50 gazillion dollar war chest to keep the seat with until they die or retire.....or lose to a neocon like Lincoln is going to. How is that any better than the repuke winning since they both stand for the same thing? It is better the dino loses and then next election we get a chance for a real progressive and for real change. 2006 and 2008 proves that progressives can get elected once people get tired of neocon bs. If we provide a consistent progressive choice and stand for actual change and not just watered down corporate crap, we can win every time.

Rahm has convinced some libs that a sold out corporatist hack is the best they are ever going to get. He is dead wrong and his strategy sucks. That will be proven this fall, for all the people who missed 1994 when the DLC did the same exact thing and the party lost big. The public was very tired of Bush sr and his ilk and voted for change, Clinton gave us watered down corporatist crap for 2 yrs and we got slaughtered.

"Going after the Conservative Dems, is not the way to go, especially if they are in RED districts. That is a waste of time, energy and money. We needs more Left leaning democrats, but you won't get one from a Red district."

I don't know where you expect to get more progressives from if we don't make room for new ones. Should we vote out progressives and replace them with progressives? Of course we need the dinos gone as well as the repukes. All Blanche Lincoln did for this party was disappoint it and assure a neocon winning this time. The party is about to become alot more progressive this fall and I for one can't wait. Bye bye Blanche and co. We need Blanche's seat open next go around for a real dem.

With a sellout centrist as president it behooves us to have as liberal a congress as possible. I would rather have a small majority of true libs than a huge majority of Blanche Lincolns, all willing to do the corporate dirty work for their masters at the drop of a check.

[SunsetDreams]

147. Apparently you missed the qualifier

"Red district" How do you propose we get a Progressive in a "Red district"?
A republican who will vote with the Democrats none of the time, is not better than a Conservative Dem who will vote with us some of the time. That strategy might be sound, IF, you could guarantee you could pick up seats elsewhere, other wise you have lost any kind of hope that any Democratic legislation will get passed.

It is shooting ourselves in the foot. Once you pick up those other seats, then and ONLY then, could you afford to lose some Conservative Dems.

I sure hope the party becomes more Progressive this fall, I would LOVE that. I hope you are right, we need that.

As for your last comment. "sellout centrist as president". That is a criticism, that I think is unwarranted. Obama doesn't write legislation, Congress does. Which goes back to the point of needed a bigger Progressive majority.

[TheKentuckian]

181. It kinda seems you are pretty much talking in a circle

You say we need more Democrats so we have to swing seats currently held by clearly extreme batshit Republicans (ie conservative areas) but then say that we can't expect to elect progressives from such areas but perhaps once more liberals are elected then some of the blue dogs/New Dems/DLCers can be replaced.

Where would these liberals come from? We hold virtually every one of those seats now and due to gerrymandering and Utah getting the same representation as California, there aren't almost any potentially progressive seats to pick up and at best we add can add more conservatives/centrists to hijack any substantive policy changes.

The idea seems more like a pacification technique than a road map to political victory to me.

Pure four corners, Dean Smith is surely proud that his boring ass basketball concepts have crossed over to Democratic politics.

[Touchdown]

73. It's abusive, really. How soon we forget that we were called Fucking Retards

by the White House Chief of Staff.

But fall in line! You'll get your pony after I get mine!

[defendandprotect]

76. Unfortunately, I think who forget it . . .

may agree with it --

[liquid diamond]

91. This is bullshit. n/t

[laughingliberal]

94. Is not.

:hi:

[SunsetDreams]

114. again, If you are going to quote at least do it correctly

It was "Fucking Retarded". I am DEFINITELY not a Rahm fan, but this quote is taken out of context.
A few(mind you a few) democrats at that meeting said that they were going to start airing ads against Conservative Dems.
When you consider, that chances are, you will not be able to get a Progressive IN over those Conservative Dems, in those RED districts where most of them come from, it seems counter productive. While his choice of words were over the top, he is right in this instance.

While I don't care for Conservative Dems, they are a necessity right now, in order to get ANY legislation across. The Republicans are blocking everything. What needs to happen is getting a bigger majority, and that means picking off Republican seats, in toss up disticts, and/or unsafe seats. Going after the Conservative Dems, is not the way to go, especially if they are in RED districts. That is a waste of time, energy and money. We needs more Left leaning democrats, but you won't get one from a Red district.

[bjobotts]

81. We can both criticize and support Obama and the dems at the same time

[bjobotts]

82. We can't find a better man so we make this one want to be a better man

[bjobotts]

83. The wealthy don't care about these single issues. We are fighting an Oligarchy who only want profit

[bjobotts]

84. Dems at least try to address our problems, repubs ignore them and protect the wealthy's interests

[bjobotts]

85. Im pushing for the best we can achieve(Dems) not the worst that could happen(repubs)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Raineyb]

189. Do they? Do they really try to address them?

Or do they pay lip service in order to get us to vote for them? The pass some watered down bit of fuckery and expect us to be grateful to them while trying to blackmail us into voting for them because the Republicans are worse?

At least with Republicans I don't have to worry about them pretending to give a damn about the issues I care about then turning around and selling out those principles. Republicans are rather up front with their bullshit and I can plan accordingly. Democrats get your hopes up then come crying again for your vote as though they're entitled to them even though they'd done nothing.

[sabrina 1]

67. I hope Franken sees the many posts like yours which apparently

reflect the WH's attitude towards those who put them in office. In fact, in case he hasn't, I will email him a few threads from some of the major blogs where these kind of posts abound.

Whoever thought that attacking their supporters was good politics, needs to be fired and posters like this are who Franken needs to talk to.

I have never seen more vicious attacks on democrats from the right, that I have seen on so-called 'left' boards. In fact I believe someone will be writing a book about it one day as a primer on how to lose elections.

These kind of posts, slamming the very people who worked hard to get a majority of democrats, have become common. The mistake they make though is before the 2008 election, most of us ignored them and did what we thought needed to be done. It was necessary to give Democrats a chance so these nasty attacks on people with ligitimate concerns, had little impact back then.

But now, it's a different story since people have seen and are not happy with the results of a Dem. Majority and these kind of posts CAN be the catalyst to push rightfully, as Franken acknowledges, dissatisfied Independents and Democrats away from supporting Democrats in November.

I hope the Leadership, and Franken have a little chat with their overly zealous supporters before it's too late.

[liberation]

72. The fields to Arkana: bring our strawmen back.

[HughMoran]

141. Yeah, that's it

I live what Franken is saying - it's a riot reading people who say they agree with him while simultaneously slashing at Democrats 24/7.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Al Franken is a great guy, and a fine United States Senator

He is a man who has my trust in areas where others simply do not, in part because I have personal endorsements of Al from lots of good people, from before the idea of him being in politics was anything more than a sketch idea. He knows more about the functioning of the Senate, and Congress as a whole, than most of his peers in the Chamber, even those who have been there for ages.
His presence in the Senate is a gift from the people of Minnesota to the Untied States as a whole, and they have my profound thanks for electing him. Each and every voter who worked for him, I thank you.
Sorry, but the topic I went for here is Al Franken. This here is the Al Franken Decade. No more Pete Taglianis in office!

[jwirr]

17. Proud of my senator.

[bjobotts]

86. Hard to believe he represents the same state that elected the insane M.Bachmann

[creon]

140. 46%

Bachmann was elected with 46% of the vote
Tinkelberg got 43%
Anderson got 10%

Bachmann is vulnerable.

[Stardust]

18. What's not to love about this guy? Ladies & Gentlemen: Al Franken!

http://www.youtube.com/v/b_mwsDFm7bQ&

:rofl: :loveya: :patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

19. I've said it before and I will say it again, I envy the good people from Minnesota.

They have a great Senator in Franken.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

[iamjoy]

68. Except Those In US House District 6

[wellstone dem]

95. Hey, I'm in the 6th District, and my vote helped to elect Al Franken too, NOW

I need your help. Please donate to www.tarrylclark.com so we can get rid of Bachmann like we got rid of Coleman.

[xchrom]

21. i do like me some al franken. nt

[ibegurpard]

22. how many times do i have to say this?

I could give a flying fuck about the "pace"...what I'm enraged about is the DIRECTION.

[Enthusiast]

128. Yes.

And based on the piece here there is no reason to "track right" to win an election. Our side just needs to do the right thing. What constitutes the right thing is clear to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[NJmaverick]

151. Healthcare reform to help millions and reigning in Wall Street are bad directions?

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Maybe, it was saving the Economy that has enraged you

[ibegurpard]

172. nice newspeak

you mean the Health insurance corporation protection act, the failure to reinstate Glass-Steagall and the Wall Street bailout?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The votes of the left are available to the Democrats...if they earn them.

"Not as bad", "You haven't got your moneys' worth", "Progressives are frustrated", are hardly enticing campaign slogans.

[tomp]

30. franken is also covering up the truth...

...as typical dem politicians are wont to do.

some are moving at a different pace? that's right. some are moving very fast in the opposite direction i want to go.

don't tell me franken doesn't know this.

this kind of diversion is the stock in trade of dem politicians. it is THE problem.

[sufrommich]

33. Wow, there goes Franken under the bus. Doesn't sound

like you have any use for democrats period.

[Davis_X_Machina]

35. What's the point of even having a party...

....if you can't read people you don't like out of it?

It would be like building a tree-house with a ladder you couldn't pull up.

[tomp]

193. now you're getting it.

there are only a handful of any use to me, i.e., that are even in the same neighborhood as my ballpark.

the vast majority of dem politicians are the problem, not the solution.

[immoderate]

93. He said it. A different pace could be negative.

He was being polite. Certainly, it's not a cover up.

--imm

[Individualist]

163. Hear, hear!

[Hawkowl]

27. Franken for VP

I think Franken would make an awesome VP. An attack dog with a biting sense of humor.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. Franken's right. Here's the problem...

Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

The only way to usher in the world a lot of DU'ers claim they want involve steps they will not take -- 1917 steps. 1789 steps. 1848 steps. 1861-65 steps.

The question is, how bad do they want that world? 1917 bad? 1789 bad? 1848 bad? 1861-65 bad?

If the answer is 'no', then they're left with the very process Franken is talking about: slow, incremental change, complete with backtracking and failures along the way.

And they also have to change their definition of what the world they want is.

If the answer's 'yes', they've got more important things to do than post on discussion boards.

Politics, or civil war.

There is no tertium quid. The widely-held DU dream of a politics immaculately conceived without sin, a politics-without-politicians, is a willow-the-wisp.

[mstinamotorcity]

34. If the Dems check out now

then they will be resorting back ten years instead of looking ten years ahead. We did not get everything we wanted in any of the bills that have passed under the current administration,but,it is more than we had under the last administration. I say lets move forward and give them hell this November so that we can get more of the Democratic and Progressive agenda forward. We all wanted more from this administration,but we see the corporate obstacles that stand in our way. We can't expect this administration to do it all with the amount of corporate dollars dangling in front of their very eyes with ignorant rhetoric tied to it. They will tell you all the myths with no facts to back it up. And you will still have some that believe tax cuts produce revenue. Which lets you know that the word cut means something different to them (repugs). We are a strong determined party and even though we may not all agree on everything, we can stand together to make more of the things we want happen. I know it is hard but all good movements took years to accomplish their goals. And I have no doubt that we as members of the Democratic Party will make it happen if it takes everything we got. We are the ninety-nine." Repeal Bush Tax Cuts"

[alarimer]

36. Yes I can

People like Franken and Feingold and Sanders are way outnumbered by the corporate whores in COngress and the White House.

All our yelling has done NOTHING. They (the President, Democratic members of Congress) do not fight for progressive values; they throw out those options (like the public option) before negotiations even begin. Tell me please, how is that Republicans can get every single damn thing they want when they are in charge but when Democrats are in charge they always claim they do not have enough of a majority to do anything?

I've given up.

[WheelWalker]

53. Do you really think checking out is a path that furthers?

[kath]

57. "how is that Republicans can get every single damn thing they want when they are in charge but when

Democrats are in charge they always claim they do not have enough of a majority to do anything?"

THAT, my friend is the $64,000 question. Pisses me off SOOOO frickin' much. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Makes you start thinkin' they don't really want to get anything done... (I'd like to add "'cuz it would piss off their corporate masters" -- but that may be enough to get this deleted these days...)

[Mister Ed]

89. Why do Repubs get everything they want when they're in charge? Simple, really.

Republicans get everything they want when they're in office because what they want happens to be what their corporate masters want. They're swimming with the current - that very strong current of corporate cash flow.

Our favorite Dem legislators are swimming hard against that current, even as many of their Democratic peers comfortably dog-paddle in the other direction. It's mighty hard for the good guys to make progress.

Franken has proven to be one of those good guys. I'm terribly ashamed that my support for him was only lukewarm during his 2008 campaign here in Minnesota. I can't wait for 2014, when I'll have the chance to work as hard for him as he's been working for me.

[CTLawGuy]

122. they didn't get EVERYTHING

e.g., SS privatization, federal marriage amendment, permanent Bush tax cuts.

but there are three simple reasons the Rs were successful:

1. Ds were not united enough and or willing to filibuster to the degree the Rs have,
2. Rs are a more ideologically narrow party than the Ds are, likely because there are almost twice as many conservatives as liberals in America.

and most importantly,
3. 9-11. Without 9-11, Bush would not have had the political capital he did, especially in the foreign policy/antiterrorism arena, where most of his "successes" lay. Obviously, Obama has had no similar event to rally the country and the opposition party behind him.

[slay]

37. I'll still support Al, Grayson, and some others

who are actually looking out for our best interests. But don't ask me to vote for Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson though. Sorry Al, I hope the Dems get their shit together too, but you're right, we are frustrated, and we'll either see some actions that will change that, or I'm going to look to electing better people.

[hulka38]

38. A popsicle and condescending pat on the head in July is not the answer.

Pleading and blubbering in October isn't going to work either, nor will the inevitable blaming in November. It's not up to us. It was and has always been up to you guys, the leadership of the party. It's simple: do what you say you'll do, do what we sent you there to do and the country will be much better off and will reward you for it.

[Goldstein1984]

39. Depends on your definition of "checking out"

I'm not checking out, I'm voting liberal/progressive principles like I always have. And my NGO contributions are equally engaged and liberal/progressive.

It's up to any party or candidate that wants my support to make me feel like I'm represented, it isn't my responsibility to compromise my beliefs and vote "pragmatically" for the party or candidate that sucks less.

Just because politicians trade in their moral compasses the day after an election doesn't mean I have to do the same on election day.

Let the Centrists be pragmatic an amoral. Somebody has to keep the pressure on, and it's up to progressive liberals to do it.

I understand the politics, but I'm more concerned about principle--there's nothing more fundamental to a moral and ethic state of being than standing by one's principles.

[WheelWalker]

54. I am reminded of the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow....

Suppose someone was hit by a poisoned arrow and his friends and relatives found a doctor able to remove the arrow. If this man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out until I know whether the person who had shot it was a priest, a prince or a merchant, his name and his family. I will not have it taken out until I know what kind of bow was used and whether the arrowhead was an ordinary one or an iron one.' That person would die before all these things are ever known to him.

[Goldstein1984]

109. Yes, I'm familiar with that parable

The subject of the parable was not standing by his principles, he was demanding answers that were irrelevant to the problem at hand--removing the arrow. But I don't even begin to see how it applies here. The problem at hand is a lack of ethics and morality in government, an electorate willing to compromise their principles for political expediencies, and a political party that has lost its way.

[HughMoran]

143. Yep

Love how the poster called Democrats 'amoral' if they don't agree with his/her agenda. :eyes:

[pleah]

40. K&R I agree and I haven't checked out. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

45. "have helped the nation and were stronger because of their efforts."

i guess Al doesn't want us to STFU. He said we should ignore the whiners who say we just want ponies and keep saying what we think, that doing so is what the president needs.

Frankin must be so dead to some on DU.

[johnaries]

52. I stand with Sen Franken. K&R

[Political Tiger]

61. That makes two of us!

:fistbump:

[HughMoran]

145. So do I

[Aviation Pro]

55. This is why Al Franken....

...is the true carrier of Hubert Humphrey's legacy. Let's hope that one day he won't be passed over for the presidency.

[Overseas]

56. I thought he said it beautifully too. //nt

[tbyg52]

59. Him I will listen to. nt

[flyarm]

62. Al it has nothing to do with "PACE" and just like your former radio show..you only deal with

1/2 facts..your radio show was lousy and you are still fucking up with whole truths!

And Please Al..You don't need to lecture to those who know the whole truths!

We know how adverse you have always been with the whole story..some of us are just not going to abide by half truths...or conjured up truths.

[sufrommich]

65. "those who know the whole truths"

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


Even Al Franken's not as smart as those online warriors "who know the truth".:puke:

[WheelWalker]

66. Good Breast - Bad Breast n/t

[bjobotts]

87. You aren't coherent

[HughMoran]

146. Agreed.

[liberation]

69. There is a difference between "checking out" and "refusing to toe the line"

I understand where Franken is coming from though, and he is one of the few people with actual in the Dem party with actual credibility. I respect his opinion, even if in this case I disagree with it.

[defendandprotect]

70. Love Franken -- but it's not really the "pace" --- it's the direction . . .

we need to move Dems to the left --

[dogday]

88. I tend to agree with you about direction.

I have to wonder who is leading who?

[Enthusiast]

129. To the left where most Americans

reside. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

80. What else is he going to say?

Tell Barney Frank to drop dead for protecting built in conflicts of interests for the ratings companies?

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

98. Rather than lecturing us, maybe Al should be speaking to other Senators

about why the so many on the left are fed up.

He could start with Amy Klobuchar, the senior senator from Minnesota.

[yourout]

99. I dont mind that..."not everyone in our party is pushing at the same pace". I just.....

wish they were pushing in the same direction.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[SlingBlade]

108. K & R That

[SunsetDreams]

118. Wow that sure tells him

:eyes:

[dionysus]

157. poor lil feller.

:nopity:

[Individualist]

164. +1

[RBInMaine]

101. Right message as to stressing the PROGRESS made and needing to stay engaged, but there is PLENTY on

which they HAVE gotten their "money's worth" which is the PROGRESS we would NEVER have gotten otherwise.

[Bryn]

103. Al, go to speak to Blanche Lincoln

I'm in Arkansas. There is no way I will vote for her. There's someone else who's as good as you, Alan Grayson, a few others who stand by the people that will be on the ballot.

Blanche disgusts me. 87% of Arkansas people wanted the public option, but she didn't care about that and was so proud that she helped to kill it. Let's see how proud she will be in November. Al, remind her of Harry S. Truman's quote:

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

I hope Blanche Lincoln's fall (which she will) in November will serve a purpose ... to warn the democrats in the White House to stay true to the Democratic Party platform what it should be ... for the people, not the corporate. We don't want corporate oligarchy.

[snot]

106. 3 words: YES WE CAN.

[MisterP]

107. "the GOP made the President fight for a terrible bill, but it's a wonderful bill" nt

[liberation]

111. B - I - N - mothereffing - G -O!

[hfojvt]

110. he's wrong about that

you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave

[democrank]

116. Q: Why do you keep banging your head on that wall?

A: Because it feels so good when I stop.

[SemperEadem]

120. love you Senator Frankin

I just started following him on Twitter.

[Vinca]

121. I'm not checking out, but I'm very, very sad to once again

find myself voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

[Zavulon]

123. We'll see what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire.

If they expire for the rich but not for the poor and middle class, that's one thing. If my taxes go up on that day, I instantly go independent and never come back. After failure to close Gitmo, giving offshore drilling the go-ahead, the troop surge in Afghanistan and the "go enrich insurance companies, bitch" Republican health care plan, especially with us holding the WH and both majorities - I've taken enough disappointment. If taxes go up on the poor and middle class, that will be the last straw - and at that point I WILL check out, no matter what Franken says. His idea that the health care overhaul which was passed actually helps the country is bullshit anyway.

[creon]

135. Get organized.

Get organized at the local level. What matters is getting people elected. Congress is where the fighting takes place. Find candiates who will run in primaries for HoR and the Senate. Then, the general election. That is all done at the local and state level. It is not done in Washington.
If you want a progressive majority, progressives have to get nominated in primaries and elected in the general election. That will change the 'reality on the ground' in Washington. All politics is local.
A Democratic Party President, whomever he/she may be, will deal with that Congress. That person would have to be progressive whether he wants to be or not.

[Romulox]

142. All I remember about Franken: pro-war, pro-forced insurance.

Some "progressive". :eyes:

[sufrommich]

158. Is there any elected democrat that is progressive enough for

you?

[Romulox]

173. Still smarting from those ridiculous posts you made last week, huh?

Carrying a grudge from thread to thread is very unbecoming. :hi:

[sufrommich]

177. What are you talking about? nt

[Romulox]

192. If you can't remember what you've posted a day or two ago,

then it's not worth it to engage you.

[dionysus]

166. is there a single democrat other that the friggin elf that you can stand?

[sufrommich]

167. Kucinich voted in favor of the health care bill. I'm sure he too

has been thrown under the bus.

[Romulox]

174. Rest assured: if you like a candidate, I don't. nt

[dionysus]

180. that's ok, you're not especially relevant.

:shrug:

[Romulox]

191. I know, you and your buddies post obsessively--because you don't care!

As an aside, some of your pals are sharper than others. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

148. I wish the Senate had more like him

he is a brilliant man

[FunMe]

149. I'm voting only for TRUE Democrats.

The rest who have BETRAYED us with ignoring the will of the voters, will not get my vote.

I am NOT voting for a republiCON. But the days of voting for someone just because he or she has a "D" next to their name even after they BETRAY us, are ovah!

[Sheepshank]

179. lets just say...for arguments sake

you will never vote for a Dem that isn't true blue and unfortunately the Dem running for Congress or the Rep in your area waffles on topics you hold most near and dear. Doesn't matter that they participate in 'some' progressive actions, they are just not the ones that are important to you.

The person running against the Dem you are NOT voting for is....ooooh lets say Boehner...just for arguments sake.

Let's also say that the race is close.

I don't find too much noble in your statement

[FunMe]

184. Nobility was thrown out the window the last 10 years

MY Democratic Party of today has way too many members who have shown they care more about their Corporate masters and turning this country into an oligarchy than being true to their Democratic ideals and voters. Too many Democrats care more about the "other side" ... but actually the other side isn't the GOP but the haves (them) and have nots (most of us).

So if MY party has people lose, who have BETRAYED us, who cares! Hopefully it's the wake up call to get real Democrats back in our party.

I miss the days of real Democrats and real Republicons. Nixon left the office because both parties were ready to impeach him. Now ... it's all about the CORPORATE MA$STER.

[Sheepshank]

194. nice heartfelt response, but you avoided the question

I gave you a specific situation/example and a question. You never even accidentally strayed within 10 feet of it.

So you are saying that any vote is better than a Dem vote....regardless of the circumstances, because you are going to teach dem elected officials a lesson? Screw everyone else?

[Deep13]

153. Too late to rec, but he's right as usual. ...

As a side note, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.

[Born_A_Truman]

168. My rep is Jerry Lewis (R-CA) ...

I'd work for any Blue Dog if that was the choice to get rid of this SOB!

[Cal33]

169. I'd love to see Al Franken have a try as Senate Majority

Leader - new as he is, or maybe because he is new. He seems to have
imagination, brains, and especially the GUTS!

[McCamy Taylor]

176. DU as in the people who post here or DU as in the institution which is rapidly becoming

a wing of the DNC?

They are two different things.

[upi402]

185. not checking out & NOT GOING TO STFU!!!!!

I will be banned here I'm sure, but I will not be silenced by the foolish daydreamers who are afraid to acknowledge the elephant in the living room.

Yeah Republicans are worse. And if you continue electing useless, spineless, sold-out Democrats... YOU'LL GET ACTUAL BATSHIT CRAZY REPUBLICANS ELECTED!!!!!
:banghead:
And you will NEVER see the change that is urgently needed, if not too damn late.

[Robyn66]

190. I will always vote dem

I am not thrilled right now with the way things are and the watered down legislation we are getting. But can you imagine in your worst nightmares where we would be right now if McCain won in 08?

I think that considering what the President was handed when he came in to office, he is doing a pretty good job and I will not do anything to slow the pace or make us move backward which is exactly what will happen if Dems stay home.

I know I will get flamed for this but certain Dems helped Bush get sort of elected in 2000 and we are sitting in this mess thanks in part to them.

The Rethugs are laughing at us right now because they know us better than we do, and they are banking on the purists staying home because that is the ONLY way they can win! They have no ideas or solutions but they can depend on the circular firing squad that is the Democratic Party!