Not to be outdone by non-Democrat Sen. Salazar's cynical and dividing Iraq amendment, Sen. Ben Nelson (nonD-D - NE) decided to vote for an amendment to the appropriation bill that restored funding to the Office of the Vice President. http://govexec.com/...
The amendment was offered by Sen. Brownback. So Nelson chose to support Cheney and Brownback instead of the caucus.
Now that the Vice President's lawlessness has been enabled by Sen. Nelson, it's time to revisit the question of whether a non-Dem Dem is better than a Republican.
My answer is "yes", but I can only urp up this answer in a vomit-scented whisper.
UPDATE: I guess I'm late to this issue. http://www.dailykos.com/...
I'm keeping the diary up due to a discussion on a new measurement called the "Lieberman Unit" or LU. I'd rate Salazar as possessing 60% of all LU's
I have nothing profound to offer by way of why the Salazars, Nelsons, Pryors and Liebermans of the world are bad. They however manage to vote the right way on some or even a majority of issues when a GOP'er would not. (An example is Salazar's pretty decent on the environment, when we know that Pete Coors would have put a brewery in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge).
But at what point, if ever, would it be better for the country (or at least the Democratic party) to have a blowhard Republican filling the seat of a caucus destroying Democrat? For me, the Salazar amendment came close to crossing the line, because momentum to withdraw is really building to have something done before the inauguration of our next president. Passage of the Salazar amendment on a bipartisan filibuster-proof basis seems to have the potential of adding at least one more Friedman unit to our occupation. And if Pete Coors had offered a similar amendment, he'd be as marginalized as the rest of the Republican rubber-stampers. Voters would have a clear distinction between the two parties come the next election.
I suppose I urp up a "yes" to whether a Salazar type is better than a Coors type because the Salazar types have a better chance of falling in line under the appropriate pressure of the voters they need to impress come primary time. Lamont is a hero for letting the Salazar types know of the consequences of their actions. In the meantime, we can take what we can get from these guys on other issues.
Doesn't mean I'm a happy camper right now though, and Salazar will be getting "howlers" from me until I vote against him in the 2010 primary.