Should we call them Republicrats?
Barack Obama was quoted earlier today lamenting the fact Democrats did not have enough votes for a filibuster and reflecting on what he believes needs to be done :
"There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections," Obama said.
Does this mean he is willing to work with the grassroots to rid the Democratic Party of these Republicrats?
- Akaka (Hawaii)
- Baucus (Montana)
- Bingaman (New Mexico)
- Byrd (West Virginia)
- Cantwell (Washington)
- Carper (Delaware)
- Conrad (North Dakota)
- Dorgan (North Dakota)
- Inouye (Hawaii)
- Johnson (South Dakota)
- Kohl (Wisconsin)
- Landrieu (Louisiana)
- Lieberman (Connecticut
- Lincoln (Arkansas)
- Nelson (Florida)
- Nelson (Nebraska)
- Pryor (Arkansas)
- Rockefeller (West Virginia)
- Salazar (Colorado)
- Harkin (Iowa) abstained from voting.
Considering Schumer and Clinton seemed to reluctantly get on board the filibuster effort, I wonder if the issue is not to elect more Democrats but more progressives of any kind. It's a question that needs to be examined closely, especially given how herculean is the task of running for office in a place like New York City.
At least from what I have observed, in New York City electability has nothing to do with personal values, political strategic thinking or even popularity. Getting elected in New York City is a game of ring-around-the-money : If you do are not sexy in a fundraising way, you better say goodbye to your political aspirations.
Notice though I have not said this is a malaise pertaining to Democrats. Actually, it is even more apparent in the NYGOP; with the state honchos dangling Jeaneane Pirro as Clinton-bait in an unwinnable race.
It was so obvious how the just wanted to milk PAC'ed tits a little harder and all the way to 2008. It's not working though. They have plenty of politicos that would stand up to Clinton. The problem is that none of them will make them any money.
So what eexactly is it that we need? Fundable candidates? More Democrats? Or progressive politicians with cojones?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Activism | Government | Politics | SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States | Charles Schumer | Democratic Party | Hillary Clinton
Careful...
Submitted by mole333 on 31 January 2006 - 8:00am.
Don't be so quick to judge based on individual votes. Senator Byrd was a voice in the wilderness for years, loudly attacking Bush's invasion of Iraq when the war was still popular most people were too scared to speak out against it. Some of the Senators you menetion have excellent voting records on the environment, choice, labor, etc. Others are genuinely conservative Democrats, a breed of Democrat you and I are not so familiar with but which plays well in Montana and the Dakotas.
I do not feel we should fall into the Nader trap of calling Democrats and Repubolicans the same without due consideration of a politician's voting record. Most of the Democrats you mention vote against Bush most of the time, and over all the Democratic Senators vote against Bush some 85% of the time. I wish it was 100%! But Democrats are a diverse bunch and we will never agree 100%. We are lucky if we agree 85% of the time.
But I am all for pushing for a more populist (a la Montana) and progressive Democratic party. In light of that, here are my suggestions:
Get busy with Democracy for America, in particular donating to their A-list candidates, who are the Progressive leaders of the future. Because if the grassroots doesn't bust its collective butts for these folks, who will?
Get busy training/donating/volunteering with Wellstone Action. Named for the late Paul Wellstone, this group aims to train our next generation of progressive leaders.
Get busy with Progressive Majority, yet another group that seeks out good progressive candidates, helps train them and get them elected. They did phenominally in local races
in 2005.
Hopefully working with these groups will help to change OUR party and the nation.
Good points
Submitted by Bouldin on 1 February 2006 - 2:45pm.
I alays say to Dems that we would do well to adopt a version of what Reagan, may he burn in hell forever, advised his folks: The 11th commandment is never to speak ill of one another, at least in public.
I'm not going to hide that I'm displeased with the outcome of the filibuster. But I'd rather go after bootlickers like Chaffee, Collins, and Snowe than Byrd, who may have his faults, but remains one of ours.
Inexplicable
Of these, the ones that really truly make me angry are the ones from blue states: Akaka, Inouye, Bingaman, Kohl, Lieberman and Harkin. Well, that and the ones who aren't on the ballot even in red states, like Rockefeller. The only one who really has an excuse is Byrd; the dark side just entered a youthful millionaire into his race this year. Nelson (FL) is up against Katherine Harris, for crying out loud. Rockefeller has no excuse, either; none of them, really, if they're not on the ballot this year in frigging Nebraska, do.
Interesting factoid: Schumer, Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein between them represent more people than all 55 Rs combined. Food for thought.