Skip to main content

View Diary: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Profile (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will never forgive her for her votes on the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, asskicking annie

    constitutional amendment against marriage equality and her vote to open ANWR to the rape and pillage Bush oil industry. Tim Johnson, a real South Dakota Democrat would never have done such things.

    Progressive Action score of 19 and a Regressive Conservative score of 54

    to me says it all.  I am surprised John Edwards even accepts her endorsement.

    She is at the top of my blue dog hit list of congresscritters needing to be relocated anywhere but in Congress.

    I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Norwegian Chef on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:00:54 PM PDT

    •  well, Edwards said he was on a journey (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norwegian Chef

      on the issue.  It must have appealed to Stephanie.  The only good thing I'll say for her is she votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but I am willing to bet her heart isn't in it.

      "Change is just a word, without the strength and experience to make it happen." --Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

      by DCDemocrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And tell me what the alternative is, given (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pat208

        that South Dakota is a lukewarm to hostile electoral environment for progressive issues.

        •  studiously avoiding an issue (0+ / 0-)

          is fine by me given a certain atmosphere.  Actively working for the homophobes on the right?  Do people have no more principles?

          "Change is just a word, without the strength and experience to make it happen." --Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

          by DCDemocrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:25:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And again do you want someone in that (0+ / 0-)

            district who is either lukewarm and semi-supportive of gay rights (Herseth) or someone who is actually downright hostile to gay rights (Diedrich and her 2006 opponent) and will aggressive seek to repeal what (few) civil rights laws protecting gays currently exist? In a district like SD-AL, where the populace is most likely lukewarm, if not downright hostile, to gay rights, Herseth is probably the best Democrat that you can get.
            She isn't representing New York City or San Francisco.

            •  I'm tired of this horseshit excuse (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DCDemocrat, Norwegian Chef

              Stephanie Herseth is Joe Lieberman in disguise, voting with the Republicans on every issue that matters -- the war, habeas corpus, torture, FISA, and on and on and on.  She is a Democrat in name only; in her actions she is a Republican, and that is how she should represent herself, just as JoeLieberman should be honest and represent himself as a Republican.

              If I lived in South Dakota I would vote against her in a primary.  In the general election, I would vote independent or third party rather than endorse all her Republican votes by voting for her.  On no issue does her position have any substantive difference from Larry Diedrich.

              "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

              by asskicking annie on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:32:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're back (0+ / 0-)

                If we had it your way there'd only 35 Democrats in the Senate, 150 Democrats in the House, and 10 Governors since very few Democrats would meet the "Asskicking Annie" litmus test/agenda 100%. I guess, then, that it is all but impossible to satisfy you beyond a few San Francisco and Manhattan Democrats.

                Folks, this is the textbook definition of the "martyrdom" liberal that I talk about all the time. This is the type of liberal who would rather lose than win, the type of liberal who takes pride in her political marginalization, and the one who would rather "send messages" than actually do anything productive.

                •  I would rather have a strong minority (0+ / 0-)

                  than a weak/useless and/or complicit majority.  You end up with a useless majority when you send the message -- as you do -- that Democrats will not be held accountable, that they may vote Republican if they wish and that you will still vote for them and act as their ATM machine.

                  We won't have an effective majority until House and Senate Democrats FEAR us -- until they know we'll dump them right on their asses if they sell us out to Bush, as Stephanie Herseth has repeatedly done.  It is people like you -- who lack the courage to hold them accountable -- who enable their uselessness and complicity.

                  "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:59:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Typical textbook case of the matrydom liberal (0+ / 0-)

                    The thing is, Annie, that no Democrat will ever meet your standards. You would rather be in the minority. But when that "minority" is inevitably unable to stop cabinet nominees you'll be unhappy anyway. But I guess that the system already prices in left-wing extremists like you who can't ever be satisfied.

                    Folks, again, this poster above is the clear definition of a martyrdom liberal. She states clearly that she'd rather lose than win.  

                    •  I'm not a left-wing extremist (0+ / 0-)

                      I've just lived in other places around the world where there are real opposition parties -- as opposed to our sick joke of an opposition party.

                      It's not even a matter of left versus right -- the current administration is not so much an ultraconservative regime as it is a criminal enterprise.  The Democrats enable the criminal enterprise and lately have been trying more and more to get in on the action.  They are just as corrupt as the Republicans.  And, no, that doesn't meet my standards.  I'm very sorry to hear that it apparently does meet yours.

                      "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

                      by asskicking annie on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:58:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I choose to deal with the reality as it exists, (0+ / 0-)

                        even though I admit that it is not the best. But your strategy of sending the Democrats into the minority isn't the right one. But if you want to do that, I suggest that you start posting on conservative boards and far left third party boards dedicated to that idea.

    •  Tim Johnson is arguably more conservative than (0+ / 0-)

      she is. Tom Daschle is the only liberal to have been elected to Congress from South Dakota in recent times, and he lost (although he probably wouldn't have lost had he not been the Democratic leader).

      Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolute Horsepuckey (0+ / 0-)

        Irregular News has a Progressive Action Score: 40 for Johnson (more than twice that for Herseth-Sandlin) and he voted down the anti-marriage equality amendment, and he has always stood beside ANWR and is a leader in protecting South Dakota's environmental areas.

        He is not the world's most progressive, but he puts Herseth-Sandlin to shame on the progressive issues generally and particularly the ones I care about!

        I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by Norwegian Chef on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:32:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And who are you going to run in South Dakota (0+ / 0-)

      who can run like a "progressive" better suited for California or New York and still win? Did it ever occur to you that a state like South Dakota is probably not receptive to gay marriage?

      •  Both Tim Johnson and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        asskicking annie

        also both North Dakota Senators voted against the evil anti-marriage equality amendment. Herseth was the only Dakota Democrat to support it.  So don't give me that right wing talking point that the Dakotas are sooooo conservative.  If we can find another Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle or Byron Dorgan, I would run them in a primary against Herseth in a flat second.  

        In my opinion with her terrible voting record, she should be challenged in the same way, as we do not have to put up with the Liebermans of the world.

        I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by Norwegian Chef on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am sorry (0+ / 0-)

          Herseth isn't the type who should be primaried. Her district is hostile to the type of "progressive" that you would want to run there.

          •  Her district is her state (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            asskicking annie

            and the statewide elections of Johnson, Daschle, Dorgan and Conrad in the Dakotas in recent years begs to differ with your assessment.  I have lived in Fargo, North Dakota and moderate progressives can win in the Dakotas easily if they run good and clever campaigns.

            I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

            by Norwegian Chef on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:13:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  EXACTLY! (0+ / 0-)

          I have family in SD and Aberdeen is not San Francisco.  If we are going to hang every Democrat that does not chin up some "purity" standard determined by people neither in public office nor running for office, we will be a party without anyone in office.  If we listened to the purist we never would have elected LBJ, FDR or HST and certainly not Carter and Clinton.  
          If we are going to be a "big tent party" we have to support politicians who might take a different position on some issue we thing sacred...if not, we are just the "cookie-cutter party" the GOP has been for the last decade or so.

        •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

          But some of these people honestly believe that Democrats better suited for places like Manhattan and San Francisco can win in red states like South Dakota.

        •  The tent is too big (0+ / 0-)

          WAY too big, because it contains too many Republicans in disguise like Stephanie Herseth and Joe Lieberman.

          I am 100% in favor of withdrawing all netroots support from Herseth and letting her sink.

          "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

          by asskicking annie on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:35:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

            This is the typical "Asskicking Annie" strategy: shrink the tent so small that only San Francisco Democrats can fit into it. Yep, again, folks, this is the textbook example of the "matyrdom liberal" that I have mentioned about here on Kos several times.

            •  It is nothing more than (0+ / 0-)

              demanding accountability.  Nobody expects a San Francisco liberal from South Dakota, but you, on the other hand, set the bar so low that any Senate Republican would have your support if he just changed his party affiliation and kept voting the exact same way.  It is people like YOU who give Stephanie Herseth and other pieces of shit like her the freedom to sell us out on every vote because they KNOW you will NEVER hold them accountable.

              "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

              by asskicking annie on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And you would rather have Larry Diedrich and her (0+ / 0-)

                2006 opponent in that district? Again we are talking about South Dakota, where Bush beat Kerry by 20%. This is probably a R +20 District. What part of that don't you get? Then again, because you are a martrydom liberal, you'd rather have a Republican there so that you can have the Democratic minority that you want.

                •  It really doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

                  They both vote the same way -- lockstep for Bush all the way, so who the fuck cares?

                  A feisty, determined minority would be vastly preferable to the utterly useless, do-nothing, enabler majority we have.  

                  "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

                  by asskicking annie on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

                    Why not just join the Green Party then if you want Republicans to win? Why not just join the Republican party and make the Democrats the minority party then? In the meantime, go to a board focused on defeating Democrats while the rest of us working toward electoral victory can do what we need to do to make that happen. You can go to Redstate, Free Republic, Lucianne.com, DU (where they tolerate people like you more), LGF, or whatever Green Party, or other far left party sites there. Go bash the Democratic Party to your content and work toward making them a minority there.

                  •  "Bite me" is hardly rational discourse (0+ / 0-)

                    A feisty, determined minority would be vastly preferable to the utterly useless, do-nothing, enabler majority we have.

                      "Preferable" for what?  Sound-bites?  "Determined" to what?...appear on talk-shows?  But who wants to listen to them because, without the votes, they are not a force to be reckoned with?  We have had a "determined minority" ever since 1993 and we can see what that has got us.  If you do not have a working majority being "useless" is the ONLY option!
                      I know that you think circular firing squads are romantic and that dying for some pure cause is preferable to working in a world of grays but, that is really only noble in the theater, where the blood is fake.  In the real world, those who are shot do not get up and return to their family after the director shout, "Cut".  They stay dead, like in the war in Iraq that goes on and on..."determined minority" (for all practical purposes) notwithstanding.
                      If you want purity, I suggest you join a convent -- at least, there they strive for purity, though achieving it about as often as politicians do -- [or maybe just get laid :-)] Annie, because political parties are alien environments for such concepts and they will not change to suit your utopian dreams.  :-(  
                     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site