The next time you see someone say "I refuse to support the Democrats!"...

[WilliamPitt]

...show them this thread. This is what the House will look like if the Democrats are given enough support to take that chamber back.

At least 10 Congressional Progressive Caucus members will become Committee Chairmen or Chairwomen. An additional 35 Congressional Progressive Caucus members would become Subcommittee Chairmen or Chairwomen. The following Progressive Caucus members would become Committee Chairs:

Congressman George Miller: Chairman of Education and Workforce Committee;

Congressman Barney Frank: Chairman of Financial Services;

Congressman Henry Waxman: Chairman of Government Reform;

Congressman Bennie Thompson: Chairman of Homeland Security Committee;

Congressman Tom Lantos: Chairman of International Relations Committee;

Congressman John Conyers: Chairman of Judiciary Committee;

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter: Chairwoman of Rules Committee;

Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez: Chairwoman of Small Business Committee;

Congressman Lane Evans: Chairman of Veterans Affairs Committee;

Congressman Charles Rangel: Chairman of Ways and Means Committee.

The following Progressive Caucus members would become Subcommittee Chairs:

Appropriations Subcommittees: Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro and Marcy Kaptur, Congressmen John Olver, Jose Serrano, and Ed Pastor;

Armed Services Subcommittee: Congressman Neil Abercrombie;

Education and Workforce Subcommittees: Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Congressman Dennis Kucinich;

Energy and Commerce Subcommittees: Congressman Ed Markey and Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky and Hilda Solis;

Financial Services Subcommittee: Congresswoman Maxine Waters andCongressman Luis Gutierrez;

Government Reform Subcommittees: Congresswoman Diane Watson and Congressmen Dennis Kucinich, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis of Illinois, and William Clay;

International Relations Subcommittee: Congressman Donald Payne;

Judiciary Subcommittees: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and Congressmen Jerry Nadler and Melvin Watt;

Interior Subcommittees: Congressmen Raul Grijalva and Tom Udall and Congresswoman Donna Christensen;

Rules Subcommittees: Congressman Jim McGovern;

Small Business Subcommittees: Congresswomen Madeleine Bordallo;

Transportation and Infrastructure: DeFazio, Filner, Holmes-Norton, and C. Brown;

Ways and Means Subcommittees: Congressmen Pete Stark, Jim McDermott, and John Lewis of Georgia.

...so...did'ja hear DeLay's gonna quit?

17 open seats now.

Just sayin'.

[stepnw1f]

1. How Many Seats Do We Need Again?

Somebody? Anybody?

[NoPasaran]

2. Fifteen, I hear

[WilliamPitt]

3. You hear correctly

[NoPasaran]

52. I've got one of them here

John Courage is going to send Lamar Smith's racist ass packing!

[WilliamPitt]

62. Get the FUCK outta here!

John Courage is one of my favorite beers of all time.

So. Awesome.

:)

[gkhouston]

76. beer? We get to vote for beer?

Hey! Politics is so kewl!!

[Bill McBlueState]

81. with a name like that,

you can't lose!

Now we just have to find a guy named Sam Adams to run.

[tavalon]

132. Never in my wildest dreams

Could I imagine that I would have one single reason for staying in Texas. District 21 is my district and Lamar Smith is my racist. That said, not enough to keep me here. However, I have many friends and family who live in this area and I will play long distance precinct captain to make sure they get to the polls. I have little faith in the system down here but it doesn't mean I'm opting out of trying.

But I am opting out of Texas. Forever!!!! Yay, double yay!!! I love Austin but it lives inside a whole other country, a racist, bigoted, stupid country called Texas. I have devoted 20+ years of my life to this awful state. I did my time. I'm outta here!!! (58 days and counting).

[stepnw1f]

14. Thank You

Here's our chance.

[LSK]

6. currently 201 D, 230 R, 1I

Subtract 15 R's
216 D, 215R, 1I

Pull up the House roll calls and add. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp

[ronnykmarshall]

22. I want more that 15 seats.

There are some "democrats" out there that would switch parties for the right $$$.

[LSK]

47. thats a scary thought

[Hutzpa]

51. You remember Joe$$$Lieberman?

[Bill McBlueState]

83. and of course the 'I' is ours

Go Bernie!

[bleever]

26. And, BTW, six senate seats would do it in the other chamber.

:thumbsup:

[EVDebs]

50. Geo. Washington's Masonic cry of distress used at Valley Forge

"Oh Lord my God, is there no help for the poor sons of the widow ?"

In addition to his earnest prayers to his personal savior, Washington's Freemasonic 'cry of distress' aloud to others in the brotherhood would rally those of like mind. It's time, Sunshine Patriots and Winter Soldiers. Time again.

The fate of this Republic is at sake and YOU know it. So, is there no help for the poor sons and daughters of the widow ?

stepnwlf, I'd say 17 just to be safe.

[Kevin Spidel]

55. YO WILL

you beat me to it.. was going to post my article here. you posted the meat of it already :(

oh well.

[BeFree]

4. Damn, that's some lineup

Looks like the kind of players we need to get America back.

I'd vote for dems, but what does it matter? My vote won't be counted anyway.

Tom Delay's HAVA made sure dems would remain a minority forevermore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Fortunately, my congressman requires little noseholding.

Brian Baird. Can't say the same about Maria Cantwell who lost my vote when she backed Bush's adventure in Iraq.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. In other words...

I, as a gay atheist, should shut up about how Democrats in Congress are, at best, ignoring my civil rights and, at worst, actively collaborating to further diminish them and just drink the damned Kool-Aid?

[WI_DEM]

9. oh, it's the Democrats who are in the minority who are ignoring

your civil rights. Well, I can tell you we won't get any change at all if the Repbublicans contiue to hold congress. Go ahead and support some third party--that is your choice--but don't hold your breath waiting for the Greens or the Socialists or whoever control congress. There's alot of progressives who will be heading committees if Democrats win back the house.

[endarkenment]

11. I think he means support them and criticise them.

At least that was my understanding and I agree. They get our support and they are going to get a continual earful of greif to go with it until they stop going along with fascism.

[WI_DEM]

17. of course we should criticize them

and work to improve the party from the inside. That is why primary elections are so important. Like the one in CT where Lieberman is being challenged. I don't agree with the Democrats who want to avoid primaries--I think they are good.

[sui generis]

15. completely wrong assumption: reality check

we're not supporting a third party. We're withholding support altogether if our candidates are withholding support for us. That's what the power to vote means.

Think you can live without our "minority" vote? Just try us. If it's a zero sum game for us then Democrats need to learn about minorities. Don't take our vote or money for granted.

[WilliamPitt]

32. Did you fail to note

that the people listed above are members of the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS?

You would keep them out of chairmanships to punish some other dickhead Democrats?

These people are on your side. Completely.

[sui generis]

39. let me clarify

I will vote for progressive Democrats. I appreciate your effort - I just can't support a straight line vote if it culls out those progressives in committee with opposing political views within our party.

I'm challenging blind straight line voting, and I'm challenging voting for a democrat who is not a progressive.

That's Darwin, with a little help from us.

[WilliamPitt]

40. OK

But if you are in a district - say, the Illinois 6th - with no progressive caucus candidate, what does that mean?

It means a vote for the Democrat in your district is a vote for John Conyers as Chairman of the Judiciary.

You are not in a vacuum. Your vote anywhere will affect the progressive cause everywhere.

[sui generis]

48. as I said, Darwin

for the record though, I'm not recommending being this shade of passive aggressive with a vote. If one chooses to think before voting, then go the extra step and talk to your candidate or their staffers in person. Talk about them to their opponents. Get involved, shape the debate with reason, not emotion, and add your voice on top of your vote. Find out what their real stances are on those issues, and how well or badly they are able to talk about them, if at all. If they can't talk to John Q. in relative privacy on a topic then they sure won't be able to frame a response in a debate. And some of them need to know that.

Those progressives aren't in a vacuum either. Our inability to form a real and powerful progressive core up until now (and possibly to maintain one) diminishes our effectiveness after the votes have been cast for everyone. We ARE all in this together, but we do have to meet halfway.

I dislike the browbeating - and if it can happen here on progressive DU it will most certainly happen even more aggressively and less effectively out in the real world, and that is not a good thing for democrats who want our vote and our money without clarifying what they stand for.

[WilliamPitt]

60. Did you consider my post to be browbeating?

[sui generis]

68. no not you

Others here though thought they were "taking up the call". I confess I missed the subtlety as well once I'd gotten the misperceived tenor of the subject line in my head.

Sorry if I helped in the hijacking. :blush:

p.s. I sense an ambush coming :P

[WilliamPitt]

78. Am

BUSH!!!

:P

[gkhouston]

85. Will said a bad word!

:spank:

[TechBear_Seattle]

111. I am the one who hijacked the thread

And I apologize for that, and for misreading WilliamPitt's post and starting all this. I really should know better than to post here when I'm feeling depressed at the state of the country.

[sui generis]

12. pretty much. But it gets worse

elect ANY democrat who runs and you get anti-abortion democrats canceling out the pro-choice democrats.

You get anti-gay marriage democrats canceling out pro-equality democrats.

You get pro-war democrats canceling out anti-war democrats.

For cryin' out loud, we have got to have some standards besides just that fact that they're a democrat.

With respect for Will Pitt, I can't just blindly give my vote. Most democrats who are voting have never really had a fundamental civil right withheld, or even waffled on . . .by one of their own.

Will, we've been bitch slapped too often in the past to just take another one for the team and give you a buck and a vote for wearing a D jersey instead of an R jersey. Most of us WANT to vote democrat, but we're older and wiser now and we know that if a democrat takes a "wait and see" attitude about us, or looks like he or she will be casting a conflict vote in the house or the senate, it's a zero sum game and we have better things to spend our money and effort on.

[gkhouston]

23. I don't see Will asking anyone to blindly give their vote

but do you really think we'll be better off if the Dems remain in the minority? I sure as hell don't. Sitting an election out or casting a vote for a third party candidate whom you know doesn't have a hope in hell of being elected when we have the opportunity to oust the R's from power isn't just cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's cutting off your arms and legs, too. There are a lot of DINOs I'm not happy about, but to get people like Conyers and Slaughter and Waxman chairing committees, I'd be willing to tolerate a lot -- and go after the unacceptables in the next primaries. As a local Dem here once said of a less-than-desirable candidate, "he may be a butt, but he's our butt." Think of all the damage that's been wrought in the past several years and what it would be like if those 45/55 votes tilted the other way.

[sui generis]

31. that didn't convince me at all

why can't you address my issue with a real example?

By the way, you are essentially saying that you think without our vote Dems will be in the minority.

If we're that important . . . maybe you should hear us. For your own sake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. There is no call for blind party loyalty

There is a call for strategic vision. Although many conventional Yellow Dog Democrats are uncomfortable with Democratic Primary challenges to incumbents, I say go for it when the reasons to do so are compelling. The Republican Right used primaries and/or the threat of them to help remold the Republican Party to their liking. But you don't see them withholding support from Lincoln Chafee in Delaware, do you? And Republicans already control the Senate. It is ironic when some of the people who are loudest about the need to impeach Bush and pull our troops out of Iraq now, find withholding support from Democrats who are not progressive enough for them to be a more strategic position to take than uniting to win the literal power needed to change the course of history in November.

[gkhouston]

64. did you actually want to be convinced?

I thought you were just looking for a soapbox. I agree with you that the Dems have a big tent. Many think it's too big, and I'm sure there have been many late-night arguments about who does and doesn't belong in that tent. Given my druthers, I'd like to see only progressive candidates elected, but for better or worse (worse, IMO), that's not the whole of the Democratic party and I don't think that splitting the party to form a new progressive party is a workable idea. YMMV. Since even the worst DINO is better than having the Repugs in power, I'm all for taking back Congress. That doesn't mean I support everything "the party" wants, it just means that I think changing the party from within is a better strategy than becoming a third party, too small to have much practical effect.

[sui generis]

70. eeeeee

"just looking for a soapbox." Belittling now. Stop while you're behind. Face, meet mirror. Look up the term browbeating. You stated your opinion, I stated mine. My position did not involve a judgement of you.

If you would like to have a conversation with or without zingers, I'll be happy to oblige.

[gkhouston]

74. okay, so anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view

is "browbeating". Got it.

[sui generis]

75. sheesh

are you this difficult in real life?

Obviously there isn't any substance here you'd like to address or you would. We're on the same side, but for the record most of us are being very cautious about who we give our money and vote to. That is all. Is there anything you can find that is wrong with that?

[gkhouston]

86. LOL, probably. n/t

[guruoo]

113. Majority first, weeding out later - IMHO

[Laurab]

122. I see it more as elect any democrat - get rid of a repuke

With this country in the state it is now, I can't afford to be a purist. We HAVE to get rid of the people in office, the democratic party is the only viable alternative at this time, and by not voting, or voting for someone who can't be elected, in my opinion, I would be giving my vote to a repuke.

NOTHING is going to change in this country as long as the R's have the majority. Well, wait, it will change, and for the worse. I keep thinking it can't get any worse, but I keep finding out I was wrong.

Our only hope is the Democratic party. It's all we have. IF the dems regain the majority, we can aspire to once again have a transparent government of sorts, we can expect our voices to be heard, and things have a chance of changing for the better. It's the party, not so much the individual right now. We HAVE to get some sanity back into our country, and the only way that has any chance of happening is if we become the majority.

When and if this fascist group is out of there, I'll think about becoming a purist again, or, more likely, not voting at all. Right now, I'm far too scared of what they're doing, and what they're going to do to this country. Terrified, even. I can't understand how someone could not be, and not do everything in their power to get these assholes out of office.

[TechBear_Seattle]

155. And when the Democrat is just as bad as or worse than the Republican?

I would far sooner support a moderate Republican than I would a Democrat like Joseph Lieberman.

[seaglass]

168. An anti-gay marriage democrat cancels out both a

pro-equality democrat AND an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-living wage, anti-union...Republican.

A 3rd party candidate cancels out a pro-choice democrat and an anti-gay marriage democrat but does NOT cancel out an anti-choice, anti-gay anti-environment, anti-living wage, anti-union...Republican.

I'm not saying that you have to do anything that you feel is unprincipled, I just think your math is wrong.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

16. TechBear - no, of course, not. Just go ahead and vote for a Repug.

How's that working out for ya? I'm just saying...

Nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G. - will be done to help you, me and the other 300 millions Americans until we get back control of something in Washington. Has every Dem voted exactly the way I hoped. No. But like it or not some of those Dems were forced into positions of voting just to keep their seats against the rethuglican juggernaut and if they don't come around once the pendulum has swung back to a Democracy then I'll jump in with both feet to help get better Dem candidates elected. But right now, at this time in history, we cannot afford the luxury of taking on the entire Congress at once. Rome wasn't built in a day and DC will not be cleaned up and righted if we take on 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and a loony president all at once. Divide and conquer.

[sui generis]

21. browbeating, no matter how clever or gentle

won't help you here.

Stop. Fucking. Taking. Our votes. For granted.

How hard is that? Why can't you do that? What is the matter with this party that it has to avoid talking about us to get elected? You sure as hell wouldn't be able to talk about us and stay elected, even if you win by not losing.

If you want us on your team, this time, then make us an offer too, instead of everyone else BUT us.

[mitchtv]

153. where else can you go ?

neener, neener, neenr,
no rights for you
come back next year

[TechBear_Seattle]

156. Yeah, you're the only caterer in town

(Fans of "The Flintsones" will get the joke.)

Personally, I think it is well past time that we get some more caterers in this town.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. I will not vote at all, then.

I will vote for whoever is willing NOT to shitcan my fundamental rights. If that means sitting out an election and voting for no one,

THAT IS YOUR FRIGGING PROBLEM, NOT MINE.

If any Dem candidates wants my vote, he had damned well EARN it, cause he ain't getting it for free any more.

[ourbluenation]

66. I guess it's all about you. Nice. Thank you for your contribution to the

GOP.

Please try and see the bigger picture. Please...

[sui generis]

73. wow

please try to see the smaller picture. Please.

If you want our vote, court us, otherwise you get whatever you deserve. We do and will support progressive candidates, but many of us are taking a "wait and see" position with non-progressives.

Please try to see the bigger picture than your petty little civil rights. That is the part that gets us every time.

[ourbluenation]

89. No - you get what you deserve - another GOP victory.

Look - nobody screams more about equal protection than me. My sister is gay and I'm pissed for her. But she agrees that now is not the time for "making a statement" votes or non votes. We'll get there eventually, I know it, and there will be a day that she and her partner will have the same protections as my husband and me. But you can't get there without getting your foot in the damn door first.

[sui generis]

96. well then if we cause a GOP victory by not voting

I assume that's what you meant, and not the other thing, then maybe you'd better listen up.

:shrug:

I would if I knew that my party's victory hinged on playing ALL the cards in my hand right.

We know our vote is important, but three out of four democrats in our 19 states with a constitutional amendment voted against us . . . .

Now you're asking us to trust you and throw you a life line? Fool us once.

That's all, we're just picky voters now. That shouldn't be so hard to swallow. You have a task that includes us on the team. If you want to pretend we're not on the team then don't expect our support.

[ourbluenation]

98. you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

good luck with that...

[sui generis]

104. vinegar, meet fly

we already don't have the right to get married. We can already be fired for being gay. Our families are already not recognized. We already can be fired for serving openly in the military, although we are everywhere in the military and have been forever.

Our nose was cut off a long time ago. All that some of us have left is spite.

Having said that, if you want our support, ask for it. Nicely. Give us something besides threats and ridicule if you're serious. Represent us and our issues.

Or stop asking.

Anyway, nuance is lost here - we're supporting progressive candidates. I can't say I speak for "all of us" but I do have an important voice in my community, and I'm not voicing a plan so much as a sentiment. It's interesting to see how the reply here sometimes falls short of inclusion.

This is what we hear "Your issues don't matter as much, because they're, you know, gay issues" "Your vote matters, you'll cause the election to go to the GOP". "You owe us". "You're going to hell if you don't vote for who we tell you to vote for", and so on.

The honey pot is sitting right in front of you, if you only open it and use it. What's so hard about that?

[ourbluenation]

107. I don't know...my sister is gay and for her there's a lot more to voting

than just issues that effect her personally. It's about so much more that isn't getting addressed by the GOP. In fact, it's moving backwards. She aims to stop the GOP momentum first by voting for dems to achieve a majority again.

Your issues matter to me more than you will know but together we get nowhere unless the GOP majority is bounced out first.

[TechBear_Seattle]

110. With all due respect....

I am sick and tired of being ordered to see "the bigger picture" when I have been cut out of it completely. Is it really too much to ask that me and mine be included in "the bigger picture"? Is it unspeakably vile that we should remind candidates that we are people too, deserving of equal rights?

[ourbluenation]

112. what do you accomplish by not voting or voting for a candidate that

cannot win?

What?

From a practical standpoint what you probably accompish is perhaps another GOP majority. You know...those nice people who wanted to amend the constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

[TechBear_Seattle]

115. It is a stick. You know, carrot and stick?

As I will say again until it sinks in, I will not vote for someone just because they expect my vote. I will vote only for candidates who represent my values. If no candidate represents my values, well, that's not my fault.

A vote for "the lesser of two evils", as so many Democrats insist on describing the party, is still a vote for evil. Given a choice to either vote for the candidate who wishes me dead or the candidate who wishes me permanently disabled, my vote will go for "None of the above."

[Laurab]

123. We have ALL been cut out of "the bigger picture"

at least those of us on this board. We would like to get back in, so we can have some input into changing our country. None of us are going to be included in the "bigger picture" if this party stays in power. The "bigger picture" to me is caring about people other than yourself. The people the current administration is trampling over the most. Anyone who pays attention to what has happened in this country knows how much damage has been done over the last 6 years.

I care about my rights, I care about everyone's rights, but most of all, I care about getting these criminals out of office, and the ONLY way that's going to happen is to get them out of the majority. The only way to get them out of the majority at this time is to vote for Democrats. Do you REALLY think the party in office now is going to stop trampling all over all of our rights? How much worse does it have to get for you to see that the bigger picture is ALL OF US? Democrats may be the lesser of two evils, but the present administration is far more than just an evil. They HAVE to go.

They're not going to be listening when you ask them to respect your rights, but, if you want to give them a vote, hey, that's your business. They'll thank you, and then maybe imprison you for what you believe. That's the way this country is heading....it's not really as far-fetched as it may sound, and it's terrifying to me. The "bigger picture" is getting a party in office that might give a shit about our rights.

[TechBear_Seattle]

127. Please read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=839051&mesg_id=841717

And let me know if your response remains the same.

[Laurab]

139. Yes, my response remains the same

The current administration is leading us far down the road to Fascism. I believe that is far more serious at this point than just about anything. Do you honestly think you are going to have ANY rights if this party remains in power? If you do, think again. I have a gay brother with whom I'm very close. His getting married is the least of his worries right now. He's kind of more concerned with retaining the rights he has with the assholes that are in office now.

I'm not insensitive to anyone's rights, but anyone who believes that they can afford a purist vote with this administration is deluded in my opinion. If you are not fearful about what is going to happen to the REST of your rights, you haven't been paying attention. Want to be jailed for your sexual orientation? For having an abortion? For performing an abortion? For disagreeing with the administration? Hey, it's your vote.

[sui generis]

137. well if 1/3 of the dems you vote for think you shouldn't be married

would you still vote for 100% of them?

A little math. If 1/3 or the dems vote to keep you from getting married they cancel out another 1/3 of dems who support us. That only leaves 1/3 of the dems who are now powerless.

We have a right to choose which dems we want. It's that simple. Represent us. Or don't, your call. Why should we vote for someone who represents everyone else? Explain how that is going to be better or different than what we already have?

Why should we put up with it? Isn't that what voting is for? I'm not gambling with my vote. I'm shaping the party, and apparently some bloviating dems don't agree.

Why is that?

[Laurab]

140. Ok, it's your vote.....

like I responded to the other poster. If you honestly think that getting this administration out of office isn't the most important thing right now, you haven't been paying attention. Get married? Hell, we're well on the road to having you being jailed. Or me being jailed because I don't agree with anything this administration does. Help the Fascists remain in power, and see how many rights you retain.

I'm not insensitive to your rights or anyone elses. I have a younger brother who is gay, we talk often about politics, and I know that at this point in time, he is worried about a hell of a lot more than his right to get married. He sees the bigger picture, and what's happening in this country terrifies him as much, or more, than it does me.

Of COURSE you have the right to choose the dems you want. You have the right to take a vote away from a dem, and give it to a repuke, and keep this country headed down this road to Fascism. Is it worth it? When will they come for the Gays? When will they come for the young girls who've had an abortion and lock them up? When will they come for the doctors who performed the life-saving abortion? When will they come for me, the "dissident"?

Yep, keep these criminals in office, show those "bloviating dems" you don't approve of them, and see how many rights you retain.

[sui generis]

141. okay, then yes it's worth it.

If we can't get our shit together as a party and stand for something together, then I'm not voting for this party.

It's not worth having a party that is indistinguishable from what's already in place.

That's why our vote is not free any more. It's expensive, and it's worth it.

[Old and In the Way]

129. Sounds mighty self-centered to me.

We all have special interests. I want more money spent on ALS research. My wife wants better health care for her mom vet. You think you are the only one that has a bitch about things? If every one us us took your tact and decided "no one is paying enough attention to me, so I'll withhold my vote", I guarantee that we'll all never get what we want from our government.

As other posters have stated above, 1st we have to take back the steering house of the ship of state....then we can fight about the bearing away from disaster that we'll take. It's not about the "you or me", it's about the "us".

[sui generis]

136. oh man. sighs, aims foot at ass.

and you have the gall to talk about your wife, that you are married to, legally. This isn't attention seeking, this is our lives. We vote, we give money, and if SOME democrats don't represent us then SOME democrats don't get our vote. Do you really think your nasty little speech is going to convince us to just give you our vote? You are EXACTLY the kind of democrat that will lose this election for us because you think that 15% of this party's issues are "special interest" issues.

Property, marriage, healthcare, equality, how fucking dare you call that a special interest when you don't have a thing to worry about yourself?

If you want our vote and if you think you'll lose without it, then this is definitely not the way to get it. I've been voting without fail for 20 years, and every single election is "the most important one of our lives". I have earned the right to think before I cast my vote, not borrow someone else's thinking. If you can't deal with the fact that 15% or more of the party feels the same way, then you're not addressing the needs of all of the party, and you will lose again, not because WE didn't vote, but because YOU refused to address our issues AT ALL.

[Old and In the Way]

147. It's all about you.

"Property, marriage, healthcare, equality, how fucking dare you call that a special interest when you don't have a thing to worry about yourself?"

How dare you presume to know what I have to worry about.


You're like a little kid that can't play well with others. You need more attention than the rest. Just like the one kid in class that demands the teacher pay attention to him/her.....everyone else takes a back seat. It's not enough that we respect your right to your own sexuality...we have to kiss your ass and beg for your vote, too. Vote for whoever you want, I really don't give a shit.

[sui generis]

150. no it's not enough that you respect our sexuality

actually.

That's what got us don't ask don't tell. That's what got us concessions, instead of rights. What got us 19 states where it's okay to be gay but not okay to be married or even pretend to be married.

YOU don't have to kiss my ass, and I wouldn't let your withered old lips anywhere near it anyway for the record.

You've shat yourself in your reply by the way, which is what I understand some old asses do anyway. I'm voting for progressive candidates, and not for DINO's or social conservative democrats. If you think that's unreasonable and selfish and attention seeking then you have confused "you" (yourself) with the general "you" I'm addressing those types of democrats as.

That would be hardly anyone on this board, presumably (or at least until your last post) including you. The fact that you took it personally and as a personal attack speaks volumes about your stance.

By the way, I don't give a flipping flying shit if you think there's something wrong with attention.

[Old and In the Way]

170. Good thoughtful response.

Yes, I think you need more attention, because, really, it's all about you and your issue.

[sui generis]

175. those are your words

what issue are you talking about?

I want to know what you think my issues are, or if you think I only have one. I use my "issue" as an example and explain my personal position, but it speaks to a broader set of issues.

The only people who have jumped on my "issue" literally, are you. I guess that would be person.

Everybody on DU is posting because we want a little slice of attention, to share our views and ideas, and learn other people's views and ideas, and maybe to grow and enrich our personal experience with some knowledge of other peoples' experience and rationales. It's kind of absurd to think that people are here for something as mundane as "attention", or that other people would be envious enough to argue that point.

[TechBear_Seattle]

157. So my fundamental civil rights are nothing more than a "special interest"?

How dare you.

[mitchtv]

165. strait person tells Gays

It's always about you and "your" rights
"sit down and wait til we're good and godammned ready (Maybe never in your case faggot)"

[TechBear_Seattle]

174. Is that yourself you are quoting? n/t

[mitchtv]

181. sorry if you misunderstood

I should 've used "sarcasm" icon. I was "only paraphrasing what I was/am hearing

[TechBear_Seattle]

183. Ah, understood

:hi:

[sui generis]

178. hey mitch

I need a break, gotta go feed the kids -

old you-know-who up there needs some mitchtv lovin'

[mitchtv]

182. sorry I had to go take care of stuff to

But then again It's all about me
( this is why I stay away from the strait boards, except Calif) they get me sick and think they're sooo liberal.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Certainly not

But as a sentient human being, you can choose to ignore all the good that will come for you and everyone else should these people assume these chairmanships, or you can choose to recognize that good and work towards it.

[sui generis]

28. with all due respect Will

if we're canceling out our own votes on key wedge issues then we've lost two votes in every battle.

Giving our money and effort first takes away our power to be included in the discussion.

Politics and social change happens in complex cycles - you know that it's a pendulum. No single election will change the course of human history either way; in fact even if democrats lost again this election it is likely that moderate voices in the republican party would begin to distinguish themselves from hardline conservatives, because although half the nation may relate better to the red tent, not all of that half are arch conservatives.

Our task is not to differentiate ourselves merely by being "not" republican. Even if we could win that way we would be winning by not losing, and that's not a mandate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Only an immoral person choses to ignore all the evil that will come to all

And I am sick and tired of any political party, especially the Democrats, ordering me to be an immoral person.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Hmmmm

I never realize it made one immoral to place 35 members of the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS into positions of power.

I've been evil all this time and didn't know it.

Damn me.

[Skinner]

43. The Democrats are ordering you to be an immoral person?

You have a funny idea of morality. So, what's the moral thing to do in a two-party election between Satan and the average Democrat? Obviously, the moral thing to do is throw your vote in the trash can and let Satan run the government. You wouldn't want to despoil your sacred vote by actually using it.

[Laurab]

124. Damn, Skinner

you said what I was trying to say and in so many less words!

[VelmaD]

144. Holy Shit!

:yourock:

[cyanide]

95. There isn't any party more immoral

Than the republicans at this time in history.

[sui generis]

100. I think what he meant was

it is in a sense immoral for us to vote for someone who is a democrat but who won't support us, merely because he or she is a democrat. It's frustrating to us too. The voices you see here who don't agree with you HAVE A REASON. A very personal reason, and recall, we've given our vote in many elections before, and still we have 19 states with marriage amendments, don't ask don't tell, the clintons willing to sign the FMA and more knives heading our way regardless.

It is immoral to vote against ourselves - if all other things being equal a democrat would side with a republican to remove our civil rights.

We're right here. All you have to do is reach out. Not demand.

[TechBear_Seattle]

116. You give me a reason to vote against the GOP

Now, give me a reason to vote for the Democrats.

I have been asking this since 2000, and have yet to hear anything about the Democrats, only about the Republicans.

[Laurab]

125. Because they're not the GOP n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

126. BZZZZT! Nope, sorry, wrong answer

I am happy and quite willing to vote for and provide support to individual Democratic candidates that have earned my trust and who share my values. Now, without referencing the GOP in any way, shape or form, why should I vote for the rest?

This should be a simple excercise. I can not believe that the Democratic Party requires Republicans to look good. I want to come back. I've been looking for some reasons, and not even party boosters seem able to come up with anything based just on the party's own inherent worth.

[Old and In the Way]

131. "Give you a reason"?

I've read your posts in this thread....I don't think you need a Party, I think you need attention. It's all about you.

You've had to ask for reasons for 6 years? You need to be sold on why you should vote Democrat?

Seriously, why do you post here?

[TechBear_Seattle]

134. Why do I post here?

Because I want to support the Democratic Party. Because I want there to be a political party that at least comes close to representing my values and my issues. Because I hope to effect some small change that will lead to change.

Or is DU supposed to be only an echo chamber of DLC boosterism, other progressives need not apply?

[Old and In the Way]

149. Then work to change it and stop complaining.

If you don't like where the Party is headed, get involved and be an agent for change. Quit whining about needing a 'reason'. You sound like a Republican.

[TechBear_Seattle]

154. I was involved

I was involved in the Democratic Party since high school. I campaigned for Democratic candidates. I raised money, handed out flyers and went door to door to speak to my neighbors. I have been a delegate to precinct caucuses, district conventions, county conventions and even state conventions. I have been elected as precinct committee officer, twice.

That started to change in 1996, when Bill Clinton signed the "Defense" of Marriage Act in to law. Rather than veto a patently unconstitutional bill, he enshrined bigotry and homophobia in to federal law. Worse, he signed as secretly as he could, late on a Friday night, to guarantee that it would be buried by the media. As perhaps you can imagine, I was feeling a tad bit betrayed. Worse, when news of the new law began to circulate, the President and Vice President kept repeating over and over again how the "Defence" of Marriage Act would strengthen and preserve marriage in this country, as if my right to marry was a dire threat, something that had to be "protected against" for the good of humanity. Betrayed and stabbed in the back by a supposed ally.

My support was completely destroyed when I attended the Washington State Convention in 1998. I had helped support a resolution from the precinct level to add a plank to the state platform declaring that equal marriage was a fundamental right. As a PCO, I helped gather support among party members in my district and help those supporters become delegates to the District Convention; I spoke for the resolution at the State Convention and lobbied other delegates to do the same. We ran in to a very big roadblock, though: conservative Democrats from eastern Washington who loudly proclaimed that homosexuality was immoral and that equal marriage would destroy everything that was good and pure and holy in "traditional" marriage. These were the same Democrats who voted in favor of Washington's "Defense" of Marriage Act and who successfully overrode the Governor's veto of WA-DOMA. And they held enough votes to blockade the resolution.

At last, Janice Van Cleve, a woman whom I admire greatly and who had worked her tits off for more than a year to get the resolution to this point, stood up to speak. She pacified the conservatives by reminding them that the platform in no way bound them to a point of view or a legislative course of action and that the party would in no way hold them to do anything the platform stated. The resolution was passed.

That was the last straw for me. All my personal effort and time and resources, all the work spent coaxing and cajoling effort and time and resources from others because this is something I deeply believed in... just a propaganda manuever that was entirely meaningless. Betrayed, stabbed in the back, and now exploited and tossed aside. As far as I was concerned, I did not leave the Democratic Party: I was thrown out.

I am tired of working for change, only to be exploited and left for dead. I am tired of helping others achieve their goals, only to have them tell me that my goals are not worth the time or that they can be disposed of when their agenda needs work. So I will ask one last time on this thread: Why should I support the Democratic Party? Can anyone at all answer that question using only the Democratic Party's own merits and not the failings of the GOP?

[Old and In the Way]

169. OK, best thing for you to do is give up.

Or start your own Party. Or vote 3rd Party. Or Vote Republican. Or don't vote.

Those are your options.

[TechBear_Seattle]

176. I chose "none of the above" with your options

Why are you so adamant against equal rights for all? What is it about my wanting to get something back for supporting the party that scares you so much that you will actively drive away people looking for a reason to support you? How does a Democratic candidate or elected official who works to implement platform planks threaten the existence of the party?

[sui generis]

135. I have to step in here.

and bitch slap you.

This is a progressive web site. Some of us who are progressives also have the experience of voting democratic (not third party) and still having our civil rights taken from us or downplayed, by our own people.

I'm almost willing to bet you are white and heterosexual and have never had a single civil right denied to you by anyone, have never had a reason to think before you voted democrat.

You don't need a party, you need a cult. We have a right to consider how and whether to cast our votes if a candidate DOES NOT REPRESENT US. I could give a crap about what he "might" do for everyone else if he does nothing for me. There are extraordinary democrats out there, and there are some real shit bags.

If you are instructing those of us with a brain and understanding of the value of our vote to vote for the shitbrains anyway, then you're not living in reality, or at least not ours.

It's always funny that people who have never had a civil right taken away from them or threatened are the first to say "take ANOTHER ONE for the team, we'll throw a rope back down for you, I promise".

And another thing. Why can't you give us at least the tiniest respect of saying "I understand your issues and your POV, but I disagree for my own choice" instead of name calling and belittling and other vile behavior? We're in this together, and if someone disagrees with you, you might consider they have better reasons than just that they're looking for attention.

Don't make me come back and break my foot off in yo ass.

[Old and In the Way]

143. "We're in this together"

The only sensible thing you said in this post.

Really, go vote for whoever you want. I'm sick of your self-righteous, self-serving posts. Why not go post over at www.imsofuckingprosecutedandangryimgoingtokeeptherepublicanpartyinthemajority.com?

You wanna kick my ass? You'd have to take your foot out of your mouth first.

[sui generis]

148. damn humor is lost on the old I suppose

Yeah, if you're so sick of it do something about it. I am.

Here's a question for you: what do YOU think the democratic party stands for?

When somebody gets as angry as you at being challenged by someone like me, the answer is clear that you don't believe our "petty little issues" really are a democratic issue.

I'm willing to bet that you resent the hell out of the fact that you can't do it without us, and that you are the kind of person who thinks we lost the last election because of gay issues. You're in a quandary sir, and it's not my problem.

Screaming hysterically at people in a post on how people use their votes is just screaming hysterically. You're not doing your cause any service, whatever your cause is.

The word by the way is "persecuted". And you're the only one who is acting persecuted - because we won't just give you our vote and money after you're done screaming at us. Maybe you should go to that website you mentioned above - it seems to fit you better.

[Old and In the Way]

173. Lost it because of gay issues?

Hardly. I'm all for equal rights under the law. But you have a big problem with straights, obviously. Your sexual orientation is the most important issue for you...and you expect all Democrats to make it our most important issue, too. Sorry, there are 60MM or so Democrats and each has their own most important issue. Luckily, we aren't all so selfish as to demand that the Party make our individual priority their #1 priority or threaten to take our vote elsewhere. You want to withhold your vote to teach us a lesson? Do it, but please stop your whining.

[sui generis]

177. man you are top shelf

I could give a crap about sexual orientation, yours or mine.

I place a higher value on civil rights perhaps than you do, so you go ahead and vote for the candidate who can't talk about civil rights but who is happy to do something about the minimum wage by increasing it a nickel an hour.

You don't like my smugness and superiority? That's a different problem, but a mutual one I assure you.

I'm not selfish. I'm just not stupid enough to tell every dumbfuck who calls himself a democrat that I'll automatically give him my vote. You're the one who keeps making this about gay issues now; I merely used that as an example.

Whining? Everybody who disagrees with you is whining? That's like me saying everyone who uses the word whining in a sentence is a troll.

Why ARE you here? It's probably not for consensus building, my guess, since you seem to be on your own here.

[sui generis]

138. that's the weakest possible argument I've heard in this debate

we're not going to win this election by being NOT REPUBLICAN. That's just naive. What do we stand for?

What is a democrat? If you answer a democrat is anything that's not a republican then you have diminished your own vote, and you diminish real democrats who need to have their message heard. A nazi could run as a democrat then, and you'd vote for him or her just because she's not republican. Worse, you'd gamble your vote and give that candidate money and a vote anyway and have a vote that cancels out another vote in the house and the senate or on committee, for a net loss of one.

Nobody is NOT voting. Some of us are considering carefully before we vote. And you think there's something wrong with that?

[Old and In the Way]

130. I beg to differ.

They aren't a Party, they are a Syndicate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

109. My apologies for going off like that

I am tired, I am burned out and I am growing more and more despondant after reading stories like this and this and this and this, and seeing so few Democrats willing to stand up for my civil rights and so many Democrats screaming that my rights should be further diminished. I am frustrated with platforms that demand marriage equality while the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers in state legislatures and Congress are on the record as being adamantly opposed to equal marriage. I can not forget that it was the Democrats who put the "Defense" of Marriage Act in to federal law, when a simple veto could have prevented it. I am sickened that none of my alleged allies in the Senate have the will to speak out against the Supreme Court appointment of people with documented animosity to my mere existence, much less have the political will to support filibustering those appointments. I am horrified as state after state amend their constitutions to enshrine bigotry, and only the sound of chirping crickets can be heard from the left side of the political spectrum.

Is it really any wonder that my frustration comes out when person after person order me to support the Democrats "or else"?

sui generis has been very calm in his posts on this thread, and far more eloquent than I have the strength to summon. I would like to reiterate one of his points, though: Politics is an exchange, and it is reasonable to expect that, if a group supports a political party, then the political party will support the group. Over the last decade, I have seen the Democratic Party come to expect the support of the gay community as a feudal right and offer nothing but insult and injury in return. I am tired of being promised a carrot and getting nothing but the stick. I intend to stay out of arm's reach until the Democratic Party can prove to me that they will finally, at long last, begin to take their promises seriously.

And I will be honest with you: I don't give a rat's tail about how this committee or that committee will be better in Democrat hands. What is the point of fighting for justice, when so many of my "allies" have published statements denying me justice? What is the point of working to improve the lot of America's families, when so many of my "allies" refuse to recognize my family? What is the point of striving for peace, when so many of my "allies" go out of their way to deny me peace? From where I and a great many gay people see current trends, it doesn't matter which party ends up controlling Congress: our rights will continue to be eroded. Why, then, should I care?

As sui generis put it so well: If you want the gay vote, you will have to court us. This time, though, pretty words and honey cakes won't be enough: we have seen the lies hidden in your words, and tasted poison hidden in the sweets. Earn our trust and give us a reason to support you, on your own merits, and we will support you. Not until then.

[cali]

8. I like it.

I really, really like it. If you're too blind to see what a difference having dems in charge would make, you shouldn't bother with politics at all.

[endarkenment]

10. I'll support with cash and sweat

but I will also yell at them whenever they start acting like asshats. I try to go into these things with my eyes wide open. I have few illusions about the Democratic Party. Better than what we have now? For sure. But far from where they should be.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. With only the possible exception of Pete McCloskey

I can not think of a single House race in the nation in 2006 where any possible Democratic candidate isn't far superior to any possible Republican candidate on the issues. Even the DINO's, even the Blue Dogs, even moderate and conservative Congressional Democratic candidates are far better on the issues than the Republicans they will be running against in their districts. I understand Democratic primary challenges to some Democrats who clearly are to the Right of their own constituents. Fine, but when that is over we have to unite behind the Democrats running, if for no other reason than securing their vote for a Democratic Speaker of the House. We need them all, even the Democrats who frequently disappoint progressives or worse. Our nation is in too much peril now to miss this chance to have so many progressive men and women become Chairs of critical House committees. They are waiting to pick up the gavel. We have to retake the House.

[Laelth]

18. Oh, you're making me drool.

Those are all nice, but three deserve special attention:

Congressman John Conyers: Chairman of Judiciary Committee;

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter: Chairwoman of Rules Committee;

Congressman Charles Rangel: Chairman of Ways and Means Committee.

Oh, that would be nice. Only ... carpe Diebold.

-Laelth

[Rosie1223]

19. Small Correction

My congressman, Lane Evans, is retiring due to health issues. Who is the next ranking member?

[BlooInBloo]

24. That's hotter than Angelina Jolie.

It's not really, but you know what I mean.

[Minnesota Libra]

25. Imho anyone who doesn't support Democrats at this late date.............

....must be a neocon - and they must like what is going on in the Bush criminal administration - discussion over.

[klook]

27. Congressman John Conyers: Chairman of Judiciary Committee

That's enough for me right there.

[leftstreet]

34. Oh please

The DLC punked Cegelis and Hackett, but we're supposed to cheerlead for a more pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-labor, less-progressive takeover of the Democratic party?

I think not.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Wow. The glass could be 7/8 full, and you'd still say it's 1/8 empty...

(shrug) Rock on.

[WilliamPitt]

37. What does that mean?

These are members of the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS.

Do you even know them? Know their records? Know what this would mean?

Complaining for the sake of complaining = boring.

[leftstreet]

46. Has the Progressive Caucus declared war on the DLC?

If not,
House meet Senate.

[sui generis]

49. I think your subject line is causing the dust up

The answer to your question is no, I'm not familiar with every name in that list. I also didn't get that this was in support of the progressive caucus, and not speaking points for bashing people who won't just stop thinking and throw you their vote, no questions asked.

I understand where you're going with it, but for someone just scanning that subject line looks a little flamey.

[leftstreet]

57. Exactly!

I don't know that I've EVER seen someone on DU claim they refuse to support "ALL" Democratic reps.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Well,

unfortunately, that means folks will just have to overcome the instinct to only scan headlines before posting...and actually read.

;)

[itzamirakul]

105. My feelings exactly, leftstreet...

I am sick to death of the Democratic centrists and DINOs telling us to vote for these Republican Light candidates for the "good of the party". And then we Progressive Democrats spend the next four years being miserable with the voting choices and issues and projects supported by the rw members of our own Party. But nevertheless we are supposed to support them. Like that pos Lieberman and Hillary (one of my senators).

When are the centrists and the DLC going to support some candidates that we leftists select for office?

[leftstreet]

146. DLC needs to register as a party & give the Dem Party back to LABOR!

I'd love to see how many voters the New Corporatist Party could sway.
:eyes:

[underpants]

35. WAXMAN would run Govt. Reform??

oh Cripes just pull the paddy wagon up the White House doors.

[ourbluenation]

38. Overheard gay co-worker say the other day he's going green cuz

dems aren't out front and center with gay marriage issue enough for him. I thought, thanks a lot buddy - the only party who realistically can make a difference and you dump them like yesterdays news, but hey - it's all about you...

voting green might as well be a vote for a rightie, from a practical stand point. Great points Will Pitt. Now I have to figure out a way to get this to my coworker without knowing I overheard him.

[Bluzmann57]

41. One error in there

Lane Evans has announced that he is retiring due to health reasons at the end of this term. How do I know? I live right across the River from his District, Illinois 17. There is reportedly some infighting going on with the Democrats over there as well. No matter, Evans will not be chairing any committees and that is a shame.

[Imagevision]

44. Are there no concerns about being Diebolded again?

If anytime they needed to fix a election it certainly is now, especially with the possibilities of Bush impeachment proceedings being more possible and probable after November.

[Skinner]

45. I think that's not the point of this thread.

Yes, Diebold is an issue. But with or without Diebold, people need to go out and vote.

[BeFree]

56. But with diebold

...as seen in 2004, it doesn't matter. Kerry actually was elected, and Gore had the election stolen right out from underneath us. There's no telling how many dems have been cheated, and that is the point of all of us, right?

What use is DU if all our efforts are filtered at the ballot box?

[DrGonzoLives]

72. So the solution is, what?

Don't bother, just stay home, your vote won't count anyway?

[BeFree]

80. That's where I am leaning, yes

And I've worked my ass off trying to get people alerted to what has happened. They stole two elections for president, and no telling how many other seats, what makes you think they will stop now? Thanks for asking, Doc.

[gkhouston]

84. To hell with that. Our votes sure as hell won't be counted

if we don't cast 'em. Might as well try.

[BeFree]

90. I have been trying

And no one really cares, so why should I keep banging my head?

Where is the outrage about the black boxes? Without us being united, the elections will be stolen again and again.

[DrGonzoLives]

92. Without even trying to get Democrats elected

what is going to happen? You think the Republicans will magically take care of the problem?

Yell and scream about it all you want. Nothing gets accomplished so long as there are 218 solid (R) votes.

[BeFree]

99. No

I would hope we become united and get rid of the vote stealing machines.

If we can't unite, then what is the use?

And don't EVEN begin to tell me "nothing gets accomplished."

[DrGonzoLives]

88. So what are you even doing here?

If everything is pointless, why do you even care enough to post here?

[BeFree]

91. Because....

My vote can be easily stolen. DUH!

What about your vote? Do you have faith?

Why are you posting here?

[DrGonzoLives]

94. Yes, I do

I'm here to get Democrats in office who will get something done about that and a hundred other issues.

But go on being a defeatist if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[BeFree]

97. Your attitude is defeatist

Instead of asking what you can do, you divide me and question my involvement.

You don't even get the basic premise that dems have been elected, but were ripped off. Maybe you don't even care?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

103. Ewwww

Now that's unity, eh? No wonder we dems are in such bad shape.

[BeFree]

108. Well, your time is up

I gave you an hour to edit.

You:
I'm fucking through with one-note dipshits like you.

"My vote won't count, so why bother, but we have to fight for change!"

Hey, fuckwit, ever thought you can do both, or is your fucking brain too small to accomodate two such notions?

Me: Who are you? How can you get away with that? I guess no one but I, have read your words.

First, I can accomodate two such notions, but it seems you can't accomodate even one. United we can win. Vote for Dems, got that. With a majority in congress things will be better, right.

But don't you even consider that we should rightfully BE seated as a majority? That we can never be a majority if they steal elections? Why can't you accomodate that?

I never said I would not vote, those are your twisted words. I said I am leaning toward the understanding that if my vote is stolen, again, I have to ask myself: What is the use?

[Imagevision]

82. The Presidential election must be monitored by a international group

there's no checks and balances anymore in anything this administration is invoved in...
Bush makes sure that no-one can be lookin when goes illegal and it's a simple fact!

[Imagevision]

65. go out and vote? - but, that's what we did the last time...

[guruoo]

114. Best way to end e-voting fraud is to achieve a victory so overwhelming

that the vote hackers are finally forced
to overplay their hand.

[Emit]

128. I was speaking with a statistician the other night

We were discussing e-voting and election fraud issues. He made a statement similar to yours -- get the Dems out in record numbers, get people involved on a local level. If the fraud is happening with the e-vote machines, eventually, the people stealing the vote will screw up big time --overplay their hand, as you stated.

It is the only thing that I can think of, 'cause it sure beats just throwing in the towel and calling it quits.

[mcar]

53. Amen to this!

n/t

[countryjake]

54. I simply refuse to support a Democrat that doesn't represent me.

In my state, we have one very outstanding Democrat and one extremely "sell-out" Democrat. I'll do everything to support the one who's good and at this point, I'm wondering about the dilemma of voting out the bad one. Is the right-wing gonna jump in to take advantage of the "unrest" amongst the masses who see this Democrat as a person taking positions that are not good for our state's people? Probably. So do I waste a vote on a Democrat that does things I don't agree with and who actually backs the right-wing, anyway, or withhold my vote in that square, to register my dissatisfaction with the record keepers. My vote is my voice.

[Kevin Spidel]

58. for 2006...

read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x839811

[countryjake]

71. Thank you for that.

I guess I didn't realize the thrust here was about the House and I agree totally that working with PDA is gonna have a big effect on who our candidates will be and in effect, move the opportunistic jerks to either respond positively or change their label. The advantage to picking reps is that we can actually get to know them and see what effect they've had on our local goings-on, and discuss issues face-to-face, if there's any dissatisfaction. Reps are accessible and most do listen when they speak with their neighbors.

Our nitwit Senator was who I'm worried about and if her positions are actually going to work against all the hard work others in this state have done to keep it progressive. Washington is my state and Cantwell is one of the problems.

[leftstreet]

63. When a "sell-out" Dem loses to a Repub, it's NOT your fault

The best way for a "representative" of the people to get "elected" is to offer "voters" a reason to "vote" for them!

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Which is what Pitt did, specific to 2006.

It's a clearly articulated reason to vote for Democrats committed to electing a Democrat Speaker of the House, who will then make the people listed in the OP Committee and Sub Committee Chairs. That is a progressive strategic reason for winning a Democratic Majority in the House by electing as many Democratic Representatives as possible in November, to change the balance of Power in Washington in a way that can not be achieved by only electing the Progressive Democrats who are running in November. Each of us is free to decide how persuasive a reason that is. It works for me.

[countryjake]

79. I've never thought it was. But working with reps is much easier than sens.

I think I misunderstood the thrust of this topic, which is reclaiming the House. I've always felt that larger body was much more important in making policy and taken an effort to know who goes from my area. My worry is with one of our Senators, who has worn all my pencils to a nub, writing my displeasure with her actions and I've yet to get one response from all my letters. The one who listens and discusses things, honestly, is the person I support.

[gkhouston]

67. so you'd register your dissatisfaction by

a) not voting?
b) voting for his/her RW opponent?

Is there a difference between a and b? Is the sell-out Dem truly worse than his opponent? Might it be worth it to send the bad one back to DC if it

a) gets him/her out of your state? ;-)
b) gets good Dems the chairs on committees (by virtue of giving Dems the majority).

[countryjake]

87. I know many registered non-voters, both here in wa and in ohio.

Some people don't take their vote lightly. It's when there is no difference in the policies set, no matter which party one supports, or who holds the office, that people often decide their votes are worth more.

[gkhouston]

93. I can understand that sentiment, although this time around,

the possiblity of getting a majority in the House and changing the committee assignments would mean a difference at the national level, even if the local candidate is a complete ass.

[countryjake]

102. I agree there, some of these committees no longer even function...

as they were intended. I responded without reading the others and missed the point Will was making about getting good representatives in there. I was thinking along the lines of how the right wing in my state is gonna jump right on all the screw-ups our questionable Senator has made and I actually know some Republicans who defend and support her. Getting her back to this state and replacing her with a valid candidate that isn't trying to undo the progress so many have fought for is the problem, here.

[Sammy Pepys]

59. Lane Evans isn't running for re-election....n/t

....

[KingFlorez]

77. That is what we need!

We need those good people as chair of committees, that's why I am voting Democratic

[lapislzi]

106. Where can we find a list of seats considered vulnerable?

It would be a way of focusing energies.

[Jack Rabbit]

117. Thanks, Will. That's worth tolerating a few Vichy Democrats.

Just the idea of having Conyers at the head of Judiciary is.

[kiteinthewind]

118. Kick!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[David Zephyr]

119. Well, now that you put it that way.

Kick.

[AuntiBush]

120. Voting Dem Cross the Board

And most everyone I bang into says the same. Most popular line these days is, "Any Dem will Do."

That's how fed-up people are w/the GOP!

[Amaryllis]

121. But Will, HAVA immplementation has made elections even MORE problematic..

We are hearing DAILY numerous stories of how bad the e-voting situation is all over the country! I keep waiting for people to wake up and see how ludicrous it is to be having DRE failure rates of up to 30% in some cases while election officials who take a stand are harrassed by the DOJ and their superiors for not meeting HAVA requirments on time! It is insanity...

[ShortnFiery]

133. I fully understand and concur to do what is best for Democracy to thrive.

by voting for Democrats. However, also please note that, unlike the republicans, you don't woo independent green-oriented people to "Join Up" with bully-pulpit tactics.

For the past two Presidential Elections, please don't accuse this green-oriented person from not supporting the DLC Democratic Nominees, because I did fully support you.

I deplore NAFTA and a few other pro-business stances some of these DLCers take, but I'm intelligent and know that THIS (holding your nose and voting for ProBigBusiness and war mongering Democrats) is our only chance to get the issues that most matter to us (ending of Iraqi Invasion and some long overdue regulations of Big-Business Gone Wild) EVENTUALLY addressed.

Yes, we're backed into a corner, but don't take us liberals for granted ... well, if you MUST take us for granted to move to the center, please don't disparage us?

The Republicans have the lion's share of big business and lobbying corruption but there's sin on the other side of the aisle also.

It's best to keep mum rather than to publically disrespect your base: Working Class Voters and People of Color.

Given all the compromises (years of voting for DINOs)the liberal side of the Democratic party has made for the DLC, the above is not much to ask of these more centrist (and those party is all driven) Democrats?

[motocicleta]

142. Completely agree

I always vote pure D, all the way across, even though I am much more liberal than most Dem politicians. I will do that again this fall. All the yelling about the 3rd party voters will just piss people like me off, and lose us votes. I think we need to be bringing as many people to the booth as possible. If we do that, I trust the polls: I think if this election is stolen, it will be such a massive, obvious fraud that it will not stand. If that happens, ya'all are gonna need every one of us raving liberals to take to the streets.

Unite, not divide.

[VelmaD]

145. Are you having fun...

watching the responses on this one? I know I am. :) Nothing in the world like watching people accuse you of being a DLC whore when you're really pimping to put more power in hands of progressives and liberals. :popcorn:

[WilliamPitt]

151. It's a gift I have

[VelmaD]

152. I think I had forgotten...

It's been a while. :)

Hope all is well with you.

[sui generis]

161. but VelmaD

I do worry (not about Will Pitt) that when we come on to DU and say "we'll support anyone who calls themselves a democrat, no questions asked" we're sending a message to some people who shouldn't be calling themselves democrats.

That's all. It's worth putting DINO's on notice.

As an example, if Barbara Ann R fails and Gene Kelly prevails in Texas, if I vote for Gene Kelly I'm not changing anything at all about the person who would replace Kay Bailey Hutchison. He's a blithering idiot, stupider than shrubya, for Gawd In Gummint, Sanctity of Marriage, all the way down the line to requiring all men over the age of thirty to wear a republican toupee (I wouldn't be surprised).

Why should I pour money into his campaign if BAR loses? There would be no change and he wouldn't support our positions on anything anyway. I would have to respectfully hold my vote on that position out of principle. Having said that I'll give BAR every ounce of support I can muster so I won't have to make that decision but I am prepared to follow through on that race.

Techbear didn't state himself clearly earlier, but giving money or a vote to a candidate, even a democrat, who votes AGAINST us is immoral, for us.

I shudder to think that Gene Kelly reads DU and says to himself "yay, they'll support me no matter what. Now I don't have to change a thing or represent anybody."

That's all this is about.

[VelmaD]

166. Not voting for Dems you don't agree with...

doesn't "put them on notice". All it does is let the republicans continue running our country into the ground.

Here's the simple fact...liberal Democrats cannot get elected in every district in the US. And moderate voters have a right to have their voices heard as much as liberals do.

I'm not telling you you have to pour your life's blood into the campaign of someone you don't agree with...but I am telling you that if you don't vote out of some sense of moral purity then YOU are morally responsible for the results of your decision. YOU bear some moral responsibility for what the Rethug who wins does while in office because YOU helped put them there.

Electing ANY Democrat to Congress is an overall moral good because it brings us closer to the day when the liberals and progressives Will mentioned in his OP have control of some of the mechanisms of government. Even the Democrats most reviled on this board, including ones that I myself hate, will vote on the right side of more issues than not. Hell, even Leiberman is good on abortion rights and civil rights.

[sui generis]

171. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

In my worldview the long term damage is that by promising a vote regardless of your candidate's stance, we're encouraging a party that can't be relied on to vote in unison, that in fact is hurting itself. I'm not advocating that every person should do this. I've earned the right to by having a faultless voting record, and by working hard for what I believe is right. I no longer have charity in my heart for candidates who don't stand for something, or who downplay what should clearly be open platform issues.

History has demonstrated that REAL POLITICAL CHANGE is only effected by the party that wins the majority with a broad sweeping mandate -- and the only way to do that is to articulate your message and stick to it.

Roosevelt in 1932 -- promising to clean up Hoover's mess with a "New Deal."

Reagan in 1980 -- "America is Back" He promised a nation demoralized by the Iran hostage situation, gas lines, double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, Watergate and Viet Nam that he would be strong. He told us our best days were not behind us, but straight ahead and a lot of simple-minded Americans got on board and followed him.

The Republicans in 1994 with their "Contract with America"

Imagine how different the world would be if Democrats in 1932 had said "We can't come out too strongly in favor government-funded public works. It will piss off the laissez faire conservatives...." -- they most likely would have won, but what would their mandate have been? What could they have accomplished with over half the Congress filled with status quo conservative Republicans dressed up like Democrats?

What if Reagan had said "I can't criticize the president and his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis -- in much the same way that Dems today refuse to criticize Bush over the "War on Terra?"

And do we have to remind everyone that the Republicans in the House were in the MINORITY in 1992. They didn't win by courting the undecided swing vote or trying to look like Democrats. If the Dems in Congress had actually had as much spine in 2000 -- we likely wouldn't have lost seats in 2002 and 2004.

Parties win by defining the issues and convincing a majority of the voters that those issues are their issues. They don't win by taking issues off the table. Their opponents will grab those issues and run with them, even if it is by taking a negative position on those issues.

They don't win by looking like their opponents. Given a choice between a DINO and a real Republican, conservatives are going to vote for the real Republican. Hopefully given a choice, democrats will vote for real democrats too.

A DINO may actually might pick up enough conservative votes with an anti-abortion, anti-gay candidate in Kansas to win that seat. They may also pick up enough liberal votes with a pro-abortion, pro-gay candidate in Massachusetts to win there.

They may even pick up enough seats with that strategy to win a razor-thin majority in the House or the Senate or both.

But what will change with a Democratic caucus that is basically neutral? Nothing. There will be enough conservatives on the other side of the aisle who will join forces with conservative Democrats to maintain the status quo.

What really saddens me most is that the people who tell us we should be Yellow Dog Democrats and vote for a DINO even if he votes for the other side 80% of the time -- because winning trumps everything -- are indirectly saying that they really don't believe in Democratic ideals. At least, they don't believe Democratic ideals are popular enough to win elections. They don't believe we have any leaders who can articulate a message of inclusion, fairness and equality the will appeal to narrow-minded, racist bigots. They don't believe we have any leaders who can articulate a message of equal access to education and equal opportunity that will appeal to fiscal conservatives. They don't believe that we have any leaders who can articulate a message of religious tolerance and the importance of a real separation of church and state to evangelical christians. They really don't believe in the party or what it stands (or used to stand) for.

I know this doesn't describe DU, but in the broader voting world I wonder why they call themselves Democrats at all.

[magpie]

158. The next time I see someone say "I refuse to support the Democrats!"...

I will ask them , politely, to get the heck out of my way. I have a lot of work to do to get the pugs out of office.

[sui generis]

159. okay

the next time somebody says support candidate X even though they're pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-environment but other than that he's a great democrat, I'm going to run them over.

My work is, I would rather not have that kind of a person call themselves a democrat because they're canceling the votes of real democrats and wasting my time, my money, and my vote, when I use it.

[magpie]

160. Okay, okay

It hasn't been my experience that anyone approaches me with a 'support even though' argument, and it isn't a tactic I choose.
I liken my political involvement to a team activity. I find it hard to play offense and defense at the same time. But, I'm in the game, and I owe it to my team to play well, if I am able. Ever watch a game where a player spends time arguing with teammates and coaches? It usually ends ugly.

[sui generis]

163. To answer your last question

:P

look around!

Yes, ultimately, trolls excepted, I think everyone here on this board is on the same team, more or less. The ends are not in dispute at all, just some details of the means.

:hi:

[ourbluenation]

162. Please name me one dem who is all of those things?

pro war
anti abortion
anti gay
anti envirnoment

and if you do, my hunch is they won't make it thru the primaries and problem solved.

[sui generis]

164. some of them HAVE made it through the primaries

Zell Miller is no longer with us.

But Joe Lieberman certainly is. And that crackpot democrat in Oklahoma who thinks being gay should be a capital crime.

The issue is what I've stated above - if you just say "get your free pass here", they'll take it. Why on earth would they need to bother changing anything if you just say up front you'll give them your vote anyway? That's not a democracy.

I'm not giving a free pass, that's all.

[VelmaD]

167. Since when is Lieberman anti-abortion?

Not the last time I checked. At least not in terms of his voting record. And he certainly didn't make any anti-abortion noises when he was running for VP.

[sui generis]

172. I knew you were going to do that

sorry I didn't get the right list together (makes exasperated noise)

Anyway, that thrust is heading off topic as you know. I won't vote for Hillary if Hillary continues to say that she would support a Federal Marriage Amendment. At this point, if jesus was running for office and said he'd heal the sick, raise the dead, and let everyone walk on water twice a day so long as they were heterosexual and married, I wouldn't vote for him.

That's not to say that I wouldn't try to convince him he was wrong every waking moment up until the election, but if I couldn't get an answer that indicates that he represents me too, I wouldn't give him my vote.

The problem is not my absurd examples, it is that there is a class of anti-progressive democrats out there who are just laughing that we're promising them our vote no matter what.

[WilliamPitt]

179. "pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-environment"

I'd like to see a list of Democrats who fit this mold...and would likewise like to know what this has to do with helping to put Conyers and the other excellent progressives listed above into positions of power.

Somehow, we managed to get away from the point of the OP, and into indiscriminate Dem-bashing.

It's you're party, but it has been wide of the point since this shit got vomited into this thread yesterday. The other poster who helped to fuck this thread up has apologized; you can scroll up and read it for yourself.

[sui generis]

180. that was me that apologized

anyway, this thread has evolved, and there have been many decent points made.

Vomited this shit into the thread. Holy crap, Will. Was that a scold?

You said something that was easily misinterpreted, clearly BY BOTH SIDES of that issue.

Blaming the thunderstorm on the first raindrop is unbecoming.