An argument to use with third party people--

[eridani]

--when they say that the Dems really aren't an opposition party, pointing to rollovers on the war approval and the PATRIOT Act.

I say that even weak opposition is still opposition, and that it is a better tactical move to strengthen such opposition than to abandon those who have spoken out. Some numbers which tell the tale--

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#top

Of the 23 Senate votes against the Iraq war, 21 were Democrats.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Of the 133 House votes against the Iraq war, 126 were Democrats.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

Of the 66 House votes against the PATRIOT Act, 62 were Democrats.

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_hr4754_roll_call.htm

Of the 210 House votes for the amendment to PATRIOT Act repealing the section requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, book sales records, or book customer lists, 191 were Democrats. Only 4 Democrats voted against it, and one (Adam Smith, WA CD 9) got such a shitstorm of disapproving mail that he publicly apologized for his vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. One for the bookmarks

thanks

[pansypoo53219]

2. i hpope the media whore keep the polls tight

these idiots may rethink their votes.

[CTLawGuy]

3. If more of those Democrats had voted against those things

the legislation may have failed. I don't see what your argument is. Because many democrats, including and especially the leadership, voted for these things, they passed. How do you explain that away?

[sangh0]

5. Wrong

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress. They can pass bills without one single Dem vote.

Is it just a coincidence that those who regularly criticize the Dem leadership often don't understand the basics of how a law is passed in a democracy?

[no name no slogan]

4. GREAT post. I'm kicking it for the lunch crowd (n/t)

[ulysses]

6. might could tighten up the argument a bit.

To wit: while 21 of 23 votes against the invasion of Iraq were Dem, 30 of the 77 votes *for* it were also Dem. It would not have passed on a party-line vote.

You do have a point, but given that the "third party people" I know generally admire the reliable liberals like Kennedy and Feingold who do speak out, I'm not sure that this is an argument-killer.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. But it would have been better to replace the Dem senator from your state

that has consistently voted with Repubs...no?

I'm not flaming you, Uly, but many progressives live in states with some of the worst Dems

[ulysses]

9. well of course.

You know me, Teena - I've been on Zell's ass since 2001. I wasn't relying on him to vote against the IWR anyway. I did have high hopes for Max Cleland, who voted for it to save his job, who still got my vote although he'd pissed me off, and who still lost.

I'm not flaming you, Uly, but many progressives live in states with some of the worst Dems

Hey, I've said it before - the one vote I regret from 2000 isn't the one I cast for Nader. That's where an overabundance of pragmatism will get you. ;-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Oh I agree

but I do think the energy the greens (solely as an example) are spending (like the libertarian) to create a separate party..could be MUCH better spent taking over the existing parties

[ulysses]

11. perhaps.

2000, for me, was about that particular question - build a new home or renovate the old one. Both options seemed like they'd take the same amount of time to me then, and I'm still not far from that now.

Then again, I still have a strong suspicion that the Dean campaign took a lot of its cues from actually *listening* to Greendog Dems like myself, so maybe there's hope.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Sure..and he brought it home as did Kucinich

now..were they pandering? Or do they share your goals? That is the question..I suspect they share our goals and wanted to show the party one CAN raise funds aggressively from the bottom...you must admit..Kerry's acceptance speech was FAR more populist than Gore's...Gore said NOTHING about the concentration of wealth..Gore BELATEDLY got to the class war...which is humorous to me because Kerry has been FAR more accomodating in his votes and behavior (but for 3 votes during an enigma of a timeframe) than Gore was for MOST of his entire career.

[ulysses]

13. Kucinich vs Dean

I'm not sure you're asking the right question. DK has built a progressive career while Dean hasn't quite (as I'm sure Zomby will relate) - which made some of Dean's stands seem, to me, more influenced by what happened four years ago.

Pandering or shared goals - I'm more inclined to see shared goals in DK's case than in Dean's or anyone else who was running for the nomination. I don't particularly think that Dean was pandering because I think he was actually listening.

Kerry's acceptance speech was FAR more populist than Gore's...Gore said NOTHING about the concentration of wealth..Gore BELATEDLY got to the class war...which is humorous to me because Kerry has been FAR more accomodating in his votes and behavior (but for 3 votes during an enigma of a timeframe) than Gore was for MOST of his entire career.

Fair enough, although I don't remember Gore's acceptance speech with much clarity. At the end of the day, though, do I expect my vote for Kerry to mean much of substance in the way of the class war or the income gap? No. I'm voting for Kerry so that I can continue fighting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. I really hope he proves you wrong

about the resignation (as in resigned that your vote won't go toward that goal).

I had done a REALLY long post about the work Clinton did toward anti-trust a while back in GD. I do think that HAD he continued on that path we would see a very different income gap today...anyway..I support what DK is doing and I think we stand a much better chance now than we did 4 or even 8 years ago.

[ulysses]

15. as do I.

I'll believe what I see, though. I suppose that it's uncharitable of me to saddle Kerry with a distrust born of the Clinton years, but I'll be damned if I get caught granting blind faith to any goddamned body for the nonce.

edit: born not borne.

[Tarheelhombre]

8. People who say there isn't a difference between the parties

Are simply oblivious to politics. They need to be educated. This will help.