Skip to main content

View Diary: AFL-CIO warns Super Congress Democrats against voting with Republicans (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not voting = dropping out of an election. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftykook, Minnesota Deb

    I didn't throw an accusation at a straw man. Much as you rationalize "withhold[ing] support", when it equates to not voting, dropping out is a fair characterization. As for my reference to a "Third Party fantasy," some of our disaffected Kossacks are forcefully advocating a third party. I apologize to you and anyone who thought that phrase was directed at your particular comment. But I do not apologize for linking withholding support with not voting or with pleading for a third party. The effect is the same.

    As for your cause, I agree with you. We should all make our views known. I agree that our President has not done all he campaigned on. More full-throated and strategically effective advocacy on his part might have produced results we would have liked better. I have written and e-mailed the White house on several issues to say just that.

    But be fair on this, for "might" is the right word. President Obama had a sclerotic Senate and a Blue Dog-heavy house for his first two years. When he could not count on the votes of those 40 to 50 House Democrats and when the Senate so ill-advisedly let the GOP and Baucus slow-walk health reform for months, the handwriting was on the wall.

    So Yes, you can demand to see a good fight. I'll be making donations, volunteering throughout the next 12 months, writing letters, making calls and harangueing my Congressman and Senators in town halls. Join me on that, please.

    When push comes to shove in November 2012 - and it will, all across America - I'm voting solidly Democratic ... and I'll continue to call out anyone who "withholds support" by saying they won't vote for Democrats.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:55:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I take it then that you objected (0+ / 0-)

      when we expelled sad Joe Lieberman from our party.  Did you support him simply because he called himself a Democrat?

      No incumbent Democrat gets my automatic support. She earns it by her actions, and I'll support whom I choose to. My tolerance for useless Dems cashing in on our hard work placing them in office, is simply lower than yours, evidently.

      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

      by deben on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:46:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's unpack that. (0+ / 0-)

        No, actually, Joe Lieberman did not "cash in on our hard work placing [him] in office..." In 2006, CT Democrats primaried him. And No, that was not a good example of "... a great job of expelling Senator Lieberman from our party." In fact, it was an epic Pyrhhic victory. As Jonathan Chait pointed out (in an article in May 2006):

        "... the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent."

        Now, I know there are many Kossacks who get red-faced over Chait but he got that call right. Defeating Lieberman in a come-from-behind effort was a celebrated victory, one to be savored. Except when Senator Joe ran as an independent, won (with 50% in a three-way race!) and then triumphed when Senate leadership bargained with him to be counted as an "Independent Democrat."

        Actually, I thought slating Lieberman in 2006 as Al Gore's VP running mate was fool-hardy (but then, I also thought the smug and sanctimonious but pure Al Gore was a mistake, too) ... but I voted for them. And I thought Lieberman's campaigning for McCain in 2008 was a low and foul blow. But that's what we get when we screw around primarying a guy who's popular enough to win despite us.

        That, I think, proves the point I was making when we started this round of comments.

        And No, Democrats do not get my "automatic support." As I wrote before, I contact them about policy issues, mostly where I disagree, which has been often. But I vote ... and I vote do Democratic, even when I have to hold my nose to do it.

        I want Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012! Those will be uphill victories. On November 6, 2012 - no matter how much I've bitched and moaned about how the Democrats should have been even more progressive - I'm going to the voting booth (actually I'll be voting early so I can do Voter Protection duty wherever they send me), and voting for Democrats.

        Democrats who should vote but don't in order to send some sort of message can feel pure as the driven snow, as liberal as they want to, confident in their intolerance. But if they wake up to a GOP President and/or GOP majorities in the House and Senate, it'll serve them Right. Literally. And the rest of us and the American public will be terribly, sadly dis-served.

        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

        by TRPChicago on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 05:50:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing new here (0+ / 0-)

          Same blaming the failures of Washington Democrats on not enough support from us awesomely powerful liberal bloggers. We're to blame even for the sins of Joe Lieberman because, because, well because we didn't support him!!!


          You know, the only reason you're blaming liberals for whatever election disaster you expect in 2012, is because you're not talking to conservatives. If you were, you could blame Washington's unpopularity on their awesome powers then, rather than on the awesome powers of an anonymous deben on the Internet.

          If you don't want to wake up to another Republican presidency, then start insisting Obama do what he promised he would in '08. That Democrat won.

          Otherwise, President Romney. And then I'll be blaming you.

          Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

          by deben on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:31:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site