Serious question for you

Why is it good to have Senators on the "Democratic Party" that ALWAYS side themselves with the Republicans?

How is that "GOOD", necessary or RELEVANT, POLITICALLY?

Repubs, but for Zell Miller who is gone now.

More?

He is voting NO on the Rice confirmation.

The first time, I've looked at Bayh's record

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

Voted down a criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during another crime.
Voted to allow abortions on foreign military bases.
Voted to add sexual orientation to hate crimes.
Voted down increasing penalties for drug offenders.
Voted to spend $400 billion+ of the tax cut on education.
Opposes Bush's voucher proposal (rated 91% by the NEA).
Voted down drilling in ANWR.
Voted down ending discussion on raising CAFE standards.
Voted down banning lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Voted down ending Clinton's ergonomic rules.

And there's plenty more. No, he's not ideal, but to say he's 100% behind Bush is just ridiculous - at most, 50%, which, yeah, sucks.

If you're going to criticize someone, criticize them right.

You can find stuff for Libermann at the same site.

WOW, 50% percent is "not that bad"...your standards are just "great"

G'day

Those are NOT my standards, thanks, though, for creating plenty of strawmen in this thread. It's very entertaining.

I was taking issue with your "they vote 100% with Republicans" diatribe, which is just idiotic.

And it's "American people do not," not "does not."

that you will admit you're wrong. After all, you're always right, and those of us who disagree are obviously either idiots or Republicans in disguise.

Yeah, I can read and write. Evidently you can't.

for the FIRST time in his career.

he only voted that way to appease the base -- looking for a presidential run in 08

I'm no fan of either, but let's be honest with ourselves when we answer nsma's question, hmmmm?

Besides, Bayh already said on the floor he won't vote for Rice, and he's a big supporter of the war in Iraq.

Thanks, you've made my point.

now means being a 100% supporter of the President? Try again.

What do you think?

even in the last 3 years, it is more liberal than 90% of Repubs...as is Bayh even though I personally don't care for either

As you know, American people DOESN'T READ SENATE RECORDS.

and side with the Republicans all the time?

http://www.adaction.org/sen.htm

Shall I remind you of the LIES TOLD about Kerry and his Senate record?

:wtf:

You tell me!

WTF are you talking about?


I'm asking you, politely, and I would respectfully request an answer, not a rhetorical question in response:

Which matters more, the reality of someone's record, or the lies that are told about it?

The "truth" is not broadcasted any more. It is IRRELEVANT for the media that supports this "government."

You started by attacking Democrats who disagreed with you on particular issues by falsely claiming they ALWAYS vote with the Republicans. When confronted with the fact that your claims are false, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you said that the facts didn't matter because of the media.

Personally I am more interested in reality than the lies broadcast by the right and their lackey media. Apparently you disagree.

Did you?

The bootlicking... it made me nauseous.

Man, we've had enough of this shit.

She has to go, Lieberman has to go. At the very least.

n/t

won't stand up for what's right?

Seems a bit backward.

if we do that, then, um, everything magically gets better. Trust them!

the Bush administration's ridiculous foreign policy? That's just alright with you?

You and Raul are fantastic at putting words in people's mouths. Keep up the good work.

Yeah, I mind it, but I prefer to look at the sum of the whole, not just one part. And I have yet to hear ANY OF YOU explain to me how sending Democrats currently in the Senate down in defeat will help us win. Care to give it a try?

To win, we have to win our integrity back. When the American people look at Dems, they have to be able to say, "The Dems stand for THIS- and, clearly, I can trust them, because they don't have sissies in their party backing down on every single vote, it seems, and cowtowing to the Bush administration. They look like they actually BELIEVE what they're saying. And, they have courage- I like courage. Wow- that's refreshing! They could even defend us against terrorists. Maybe I'll vote for them!"

"I CAN TRUST THEM."

and I'll not debate it, because cohesiveness is a good thing. What I'm getting tired of is people assuming that because a Democrat votes with the GOP and few (yes, important) issues, that they are 100% Republican.

Thing is, it's all well and good to say let's just beat these guys in the primaries, and we'll get someone who wins - that's not always going to happen, and if that's our only attitude, we're going to find ourselves very quickly where the Republicans were in the 1930's - not just a minority, but barely relevant.

with only a couple of exceptions.

I think they're getting better, at least many of them.

Where is that evident in my post? Do you just like typing random words, or what?

with leadership skill and a head on their shoulders, maybe throw in a bit of COURAGE, not so much CORRUPTION....uhhhh...

Bottom line is that we have to OPPOSE them to get rid of them. And you're defending those who refuse to oppose them!!

and pretending that help us when it helps them. I am not fond of Feinstein and think we could do better, but I will worry about getting rid of Rick Santorum LONG before I worry about getting rid of Feinstein.

Feinstein is standing up there and saying that the Bush administration is right!

You think THAT is going to help us??

will help us.

ran against her in the primaries, would you support him/her over Feinstein?

If I think they can win statewide office then definitely.

Why not throw in Barbara Streisand or Rob Reiner....


By the way Dianne Feinstein has an ADA rating of 90%....


Blue folks in Mississippi would give their right nut to have a senator like her....

It's not. The system of checks and balances are being blurred. Before long, there will be none and whoever has the power will DICTATE the rules of the game. The Constitution is about as useful as a used piece of toilet paper at this point.

If so, who? It is okay, to vote with republicans, imo. And vice versa.

Aren't DEMOCRATS THE OPPOSITION?

NOT. OKAY.

It's ESPECIALLY not "okay" to AGREE with them in virtually EVERY respect, as Feinstein just did.

But sometimes it should be okay to vote with the republicans...as long as it's the right thing to do. I would say that if the repukes were the opposition.

I think people are so afraid of losing any Dem seats they keep electing Republicrats who call themselves Dems. Democratic party is also afraid of looking wishy-washy and divided if other real challengers to seated Dems arise within their own party. And of course the 2-party monopoly virtually guarantees no third party candidates will rise to that kind of national power. :(

Do you really think you will get all of your allies to agree with you on each and every issue 100% of the time?
Do you really expect all politicians to be as good and pure of heart as you are?

Thanks for your "informed" reply.

Acting like the "opposition party" will be a good change in American politics

G'day

n/t

Figures.

Which is worse, sarcasm, or "overuse" of "quotation marks" ??

:)

fascist policies. It's not too much to ask.

God DAMN.

"Hey, so they voted with Hitler sometimes. You can't expect them to vote with you on EVERY issue, can you?"

And, yes, I know I'm exaggerating. Sort of.

I'm with you on this -- thank you and well-said:

"Hey, so they voted with Hitler sometimes. You can't expect them to vote with you on EVERY issue, can you?"

ayyup...

sw

The final tabulation!

I told him that the final total showed Gore the winner!

they vote for the leadership. Thus they are one vote closer to a Chairman Kennedy, Chairwoman Boxer, etc. To be honest the real hard corps Republican clones are nearly all gone. The only two left are the Nelsons. And the Florida Nelson isn't all that bad.

If we controlled the House, Nancy Pelosi could snap her fingers and deny a floor vote on ANY piece of legislation opposed by the administration. If we controlled the Senate, Harry Reid could do the same to a slightly lesser extent. Having a majority in congress makes a HUGE difference, because we then have the ability to control the mechanics and in particular the committees where all of the finer points of the legislation are worked out. If we have a few centrists or hell even DINOs (so long as they stay loyal to the party caucus), it's still worth it because having a majority in congress gives the party leaders a HUGE amount of power AND almost as important, takes that power away from * and the fascists.

Apparently no.

I know I do.

in post 71. So please teach us.

A lot more people are begging you for answers then me- so I suggest you just start a new post with your insights fully explained.

Guys like you know it all already!

Is not necessary to "educate" a bunch of informed and practical people, I can tell that much by checking the quality of the posting on this tread!

Regards

If you can show me the voting record of one Democratic senator who votes with Bush more than one third of the time I'll retract my comments....