Skip to main content

View Diary: Why do 44 Democrats hate civil liberties? (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Supporting more liberal Democrats (none)
    in conservative districts is fine. But they won't win.

    Why do people here jump up and down when a more conservative republican challenges a more moderate incumbent in the primaries, and declare it an easy pick-up opportunity? If there's a Democrat holding office in the deep south or some other "red" area, leave him be. Ragging on Lieberman is fine because he could easily be replaced by a more liberal Democrat in the Senate representing Conn.

    The only alternative to some of these Democrats who voted yes on the Patriot Act would, in most cases, be a Republican voting yes. Could Harold Ford Jr. be replaced as a representative of Memphis, TN? Probably. But don't paint all of these Dems with the same brush.

    ==== The More You Know *

    by ZT155 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:19:05 PM PDT

    •  I disagree (none)
      Maybe Democrats as a party and progressives as a movement need to be courageous enough to risk the "wilderness" for a few more years.

      The strategy of "letting yellow dog (or blue dog, if you want the newer term) Democrats lie" is a form of enabling, in my opinion?

      Enabling what?

      The larger meme of "well, the GOP just stepped two steps to the right, so we must step two steps or more to the right to get reelected."

      If the GOP steps two steps to the right and steps off a cliff, would you follow?

      "There is no god, and I am his prophet." SocraticGadfly

      by steverino on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:54:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A few may be to late. (none)
          We don't have the luxury to wait. We need to take back either the house or senate in 06. One year and five months more of this Mis-adminstration is all my heart can take!
      •  Absolutely disagree (none)
        That all depends on what you want - to win back a majority of Senate and/or House or not. If not - you can be as ideologically "pure" as you want, but you will be permanently confined to minority status without any hope of getting out. Kerry won 180 CD - that's, approximately, a number of Congressional districts with liberal or, at least moderate-liberal inclinations. It's in these districts, that you run your "progressive" candidates, you are unlikely ti lose many of them anyway (though 18 of these district are represented now by Republicans nevertheless..).

        But you need 218 seats, doesn't you? 41 Democrats are now elected from districts, carried ny Bush, in some cases - by very big margin. Whom will you run in these districs??? In AL-5, LA-3 or MS-4 for example??? Cramer, Melancon and Taylor are, surely, not a liberals, but only this type of Democrat can win in these districts (at least sometimes)! Nancy Pelosy-style candidates will lose very badly there. I doubt that they will even be able to win a primary.

        And that's not limited to the South only. May be - you don't like Holden (PA-17)?? Fine, but you will almost surely lose that district without him. The same - for Peterson (MN-7), Matheson (UT-2), Herseth(SD-AL), Pomeroy(ND-AL), Skelton(MO-4) and many others..

        If Democrats want to win a majority in House (or Senate) - they must not be ideologically "pure". It's Republicans. who, having won 255 CD last time, can allow himself ideological "purity": lost KS-3 some years ago, because their candidate was too conservative - so whaT??? Lost IL-8 last time - so what??? They have districts to spare - Democrats - don't...

    •  Strongly Disagree (none)
      Even red Democrats don't need to vote for this bill.  Colin Peterson (MN), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Matheson (UT) all voted against the Patriot Act extension and are probably the most conservative Democrats in Congress.  Yet alleged liberals like MD Senate candidate Ben Cardin and NJ Senate Candidates Bob Menendez and Rob Andrews voted for this, probably because they don't want this vote to be used against them in their Senate races if there's another terrorist attack.  Democrats have no excuse for not voting against this heinous bill.

      Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values--they go hand in hand. - Bill Clinton

      by skidrow on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:13:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's us disagree (none)
        Gene Taylor was always "hawkish" and "isolationist" at the same time. He is, probably, the only one to manage such feat. And he votes frequently with conservatives - the "liberal" curse will not stick to him. Minnesota was always dovish and somewhat isolationist, Utah - not especially hawkish despite all it's conservatism. But look - how much Hispanic and Black congressmen from the South (even - from reliably Democratic districts) voted for this bill. The South (except some metropolitan areas) was and remains hawkish..

        The Senate ambitions must, of course, also be taken into consideration..

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site