Reply #56: 13 No votes is hugely significant

[geniph]

Even if we'd all prefer the same lockstep uniformity in our party that the Republicans have been trained to (yuck), it's still hugely significant that SOME Dems openly opposed any cabinet nominee. Do you realize how rare that is? Most Presidents get their whole slate pretty much as a matter of course, without opposition. The only real opposition usually comes if the person can be found guilty of something actually illegal, like failing to pay an employee's Social Security taxes, things like that. No matter what, this would have been a symbolic opposition. We haven't a hope in hell right now of breaking the Republican lockstep, not without enticing some of the moderates over from the dark side. I'm kind of hoping the Republicans do that themselves, alienate the moderates so badly that they pull a Jeffords. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Refusing to vote for incumbents solely on the basis that they failed to join a symbolic opposition is not in our best interests. Look at their WHOLE voting record, over the course of the entire Administration, and decide then whether they're a DINO. Opposing a cabinet appointee is damn near unprecedented - it's a very big deal that anyone did it. Like voting to investigate the Ohio voting problems, it's purely symbolic; it's not as if Obama and Hillary and a few others joined the protest, suddenly the outcome would change.

Refusing to vote for our incumbents in 2006/2008 because of one or two votes we didn't like is a good way to guarantee we have a Senate with 90 Republicans in it, instead of 55. 55 is bad enough; the worst thing I can imagine right now is to give them even five more seats. That's enough to break a filibuster. That means they get EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.