FISA, the 41 and winning UPDATE 2

Meteor Blades gave us the list of 41 Democrats who capitulated to Bush.  Oh, and the two Republicans who were sane.  Why did those 41 capitulate?  Maybe some honestly believe what they were doing.  Maybe some just got scared.  Maybe some are corrupt. No way to know, really.  But there is one thing we can know.  We can know where they came from.  And we can change where they came from. And, if they come from places that don't need changing, we can primary them.

We can't do it by leaving the party, or the country, or by burying our heads in the sand.  But we can do it by doing what we do.  Being activists.  Leading.  Changing the hearts and minds of the people.  Then they will change the hearts and minds of the Reps.  And, in the districts where the Democrats won easily, there's a thing called a primary

more below the fold

I live in NY-08, and my rep (Nadler) did great.  Not only voting right, but condemning the bill in the strongest way.  Why did he do it?  Because we elected him to do it, and we told him to do it, and because he represents one of the most Democratic districts in the country.  What about the 41?
I looked at the district, how much of the vote the person got in 2006, and, where the race wasn't close how much Bush got in 2004.

The Democrats who failed us (h/t to MB for the list)

Representative                   Vote in 2006    Bush Vote in 2004
Jason Altmire PA-04                51.9%
John Barrow GA-12                  50.3
Melissa Bean  IL-08                50.9
Dan Boren  OK-02                   72.7         59.4
Leonard Boswell IA-03              51.8
Allen Boyd  FL-02                  Unopposed    55.1
Christopher Carney PA-10           52.9
Ben Chandler  KY-06                85.5         58.2
Jim Cooper TN-05                   68.9         46.3 Time for a primary!
Jim Costa CA-20                    Unopposed    48.4 Time for a primary!    
Bud Cramer AL-05                   Unopposed    59.7
Henry Cuellar TX-28                67.6         52.5
Artur Davis AL-07                  Unopposed    33.1 Time for a primary!
Lincoln Davis TN-04                67.5         57.6
Joe Donnelly IN-02                 54.0    
Chet Edwards TX-17                 58.1
Brad Ellsworth IN-08               61.0         61.5
Bob Etheridge NC-02                66.5         56.4
Bart Gordon  TN-06                 67.1         59.7
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin SD-AL    69.1         60.6
Brian Higgins NY-27                79.3         44.8 Time for a primary!  
Baron Hill IN-09                   50.0          
Nick Lampson TX-23                 51.8
Daniel Lipinski IL-03              77.1         33.2 Time for a primary!  
Jim Marshall GA-08                 50.5  
Jim Matheson UT-02                 59.0
Mike McIntyre NC-07                72.8    
Charlie Melancon LA-03             55.0
Harry Mitchell AZ-05               50.4            
Colin Peterson MN-07               69.7        55.4
Earl Pomeroy ND-AL                 65.7        62.9
Ciro Rodriguez TX-23               54.3
Mike Ross AR-04                    74.5        51.4
John Salazar CO-03                 61.6  
Heath Shuler NC-11                 53.8
Vic Snyder AR-02                   60.5        51.4
Zachary Space OH-18                62.1        57.3
John Tanner  TN-08                 73.2        53.4
Gene Taylor MS-04                  79.8
Timothy Walz MN-01                 52.7  
Charles A. Wilson OH-06            62.1        49.4 Time for a primary!

So, of the 41, there are Update [2007-8-5 9:28:48 by plf515]: 7 6 (sorry for miscount, before) who are from Democratic districts.  Go get 'em!  I couldn't find information on any being challenged in a primary.  Why not?

Of the 41, there are 16 who win solidly in districts that went for Bush.  Do you want them replaced by Republicans? I don't.  The remaining 19 won narrowly. I don't want them to be replaced by Republicans, either.  Do you  live in one of those districts?  Write your representative!  If you've got neighbors who feel like you do, get them to write.  And talk to people.  Convince them Republicans are bad.

And if you live in one of the CDs where your rep did the right thing....call or write to thank him or her!

Update [2007-8-5 9:28:48 by plf515]: See comments.  Lipinski already has a challenger! Give him some love and money!

•  Tip jar

  tips, comments, recommends, all welcome

  by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:12:58 AM PDT

  •  go on call this dumb...

    but I want to know just how they determined that no terrorism was involved in the bridge collapse in under three hours.

    Remember they stopped searching that night.

    Until they manually examine the bridge - every last piece of it - they can not determine there was no foul play by any party.

    And I am not saying there was foul play.  Very possibly there was NO foul play.

    But come on.  What happens here, is that this gives the lie to the entire "terrrsm" paradigm.  We do NOT know for certain that no one took advantage of a decaying structure.  Yet they are capitulating on FISA to snoop on US communications while not giving one more glance at the bridge?

    This just shows what the real motive is behind all the "war on terra" lies:  destruction of democracy.

    With one mind they betray a darker motive with every choice and non-choice they make.

    by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:48:57 AM PDT

    •  If terrorism were the problem they say it is

      churches, schools, water supplies, electrica grids -- it's all out there open an and available, just waiting for some 'ol bad-assed towelhead to blow it up.

      It ain't happening. The biggest thing we've got to fear is our own greed, our unwillingness to maintain our highways, dikes, bridges, watersupplies (my town's water supply was destroyed by weather three weeks ago,) and most importantly, our unwillingness to maintain our freedoms in the face of fear.

      I am not afraid. I am brave. And I will ride my bravery to the protest, to the picket line, to the political rally, and most especially, to the voting both.

      by zic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:28:52 AM PDT

      •  bridge collapse - perfect litmus test n/t

        by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:41 AM PDT

      •  this has just bugged me crazy

        ever since I learned that the Minneapolis area functions as the world's center of grain trading.

        Again - I am NOT saying there was foul play.  Very possibly not.  

        But:  Did you know the world’s largest grain exchange (MGEX) is six blocks from the I-35 bridge which collapsed in Minneapolis?  Grain elevators are to Minneapolis what oil tanks are to Houston.  That expression "America Feeds the World" centers around the well-being of MGEX:

        wiki: The Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX) was formed in 1881 as a cash market for grains. The exchange launched its first futures contract, hard red spring wheat two years later. Today, it is a nonprofit member organization, trading futures and options on hard red spring wheat, white wheat, durum wheat, cottonseed, and Twin Cities on- and off-peak electricity. The MGEX  is the world's largest cash market for grains, trading 1 million bushels per day.

        I put up a diary based on a Reuters report which turned out to be mistaken, after which I took the diary down.  The Reuters article alleged:

        >River traffic on the upper reaches of the Mississippi River, a vital waterway for moving billions of dollars worth of commodities, was halted late on Wednesday after a highway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis.
        (...)
        A spokesman for the U.S. Coast Guard in St. Louis said 5 miles of the river on either side of the collapsed bridge had been shut to river traffic.

        The United States is the world's largest exporter of corn, soybeans and wheat, with the supplies shipped across the globe from Indonesia to Brazil to Spain.

        Mark Davidson, spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in St. Paul district, said a lock and dam near the collapsed bridge had been closed, halting river traffic in the area.

        Barges laden with thousands of bushels of corn, soybeans and wheat ply the entire length of the Mississippi River from Minnesota to Louisiana, transporting the grains from production centres to export terminals at the Gulf Coast.

        Before putting up the diary I called the Coast Guard several times to try to confirm how much food production had been affected.  Finally a media spokesperson said Reuters had not stuck to what they were told in the interview, therefore I took it down.

        A commenter explained just where one of the world's largest supplies of grains is:

        The stretch of river that has been closed wanders through a VERY pricey residential neighborhood.  I used to row that stretch of river--it is incredibly beautiful.  The bluffs on either side are about 200' high so when you row, you cannot see the city.

        The BIG, and I mean BIG, grain elevators are on the Minnesota River these days and have been for at least 50 years.

        Reuters got it wrong.  So what else is new?

        OK.  But the question still remains:  how do we know that someone did not effect foul play against the heart of the world's food supply, perhaps only achieving one of multiple targets?

        AGAIN:  I am not saying foul play happened.  It is probably stricly coincidence, or at least I hope so.

        But how in the sam hill did DHS not go wild over the possibility of an attack on the world's food supply?  

        How did they ever abandon their questions about the collapsed bridge in a mere few hours?

        You in Minneapolis, if the place is crawling with DHS and FBI people inspecting it all, I'd like to know.

        My point is:  this bridge collapse should have received very serious terrorism scrutiny.  Evidently it was of no concern.

        This blows to pieces any supposed sincerity of anyone in Congress about their terrorism concerns IMHO.

        I can only see a full assault on democracy in play.

        by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:56:18 AM PDT

        •  stonemason, relax.

          If you want to worry about the world's largest food supply, think of it this way:

          we grow that grain in giant mono-culture strips, a practice that's rife for creating pest problems.

          To control those pests, we use tons and tons of pesticides on that grain; we also genetically alter it.

          Since the pesticides kill the soil fauna and flora necessary for healthy growth, we also apply millions of pounds of chemical fertilizer.

          Corn, one of the biggest grain crops, is processed into all kinds of groovy stuff that are added to other foods like soda and twinkies and chicken mcnuggets, and is likely the major reason for the rotundness of Americans.

          Terrorists don't need to threaten our food supply, we're already doing it ourselves.

          by zic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:04:27 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        just waiting for some 'ol bad-assed towelhead to blow it up.

        That is so offensive.  To me, it is the equivalent of epithets that are used to describe women, Jews, Italians, Mexicans, African Americans, etc., etc., etc.  

        Maybe I just woke up in a bad mood or am missing something but that made me feel ill.

        by macmcd on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:05:18 AM PDT

        •  it was intended as snark

          as a peek into the thoughts of those who foster fear on us as a reason to strip away our freedoms and invade other countries.

          by zic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:07:33 AM PDT

          •  Thank you for telling me. It just struck

            me so strongly that I needed to say something.  Maybe a "snark" sign would help those of us who are this dense.

            by macmcd on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:11:41 AM PDT

            •  this will have to do

              since we cannot edit comments.

              by zic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:13:32 AM PDT

    •  related

      In one interview with local law enforcement, the news person asked if a lot of people were coming to the area to take a look. The law enforcement guy was very diplomatic and said it's natural for people to be curious, and yes, some people were coming to the area. But, he said "We are treating the entire area as a crime scene" until we determine exactly what happened, so they are keeping people away.

      by OLinda on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:52:56 AM PDT

      •  glad to hear

        someone is paying attention.

        If any of our politicians have voiced the concern of possible foul play, I have missed it.  I have heard only accusations about infrastructure decay.  But no one other than Reuters, to my knowledge, has become concerned about the proximity of this incident to the major global food market and grain supplies!

        Please post the link above if you will, and I'm collecting anything I can on this.  I'm very appreciative for any links concerning this aspect.

        by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:12:44 AM PDT

        •  link

          I heard it on tv news, but I don't have a regular one that I watch, so I don't recall exactly where I heard it. But, it sure perked up my ears, and I definitely heard it.

          To try to help with a link I did a google news search using minneapolis bridge and "crime scene."

          Found a brief mention in a NYTimes article:

          Officials said that the recovery operation could take three to five days, and the bridge was being treated as a crime scene, though indications are that it collapsed. The federal Homeland Security Department said it was not a terror act, The Associated Press reported.

          Here is the google news search results page which has some more mentions.

          by OLinda on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:00:09 AM PDT

          •  bookmark your comment!!!

            The federal Homeland Security Department said it was not a terror act, The Associated Press reported.

            Someone tell me how they could possibly *know* that!

            The only way they could "know" that is if they are hooked up online with every terrorist all over the world (and how would they know they "knew" them all?) to monitor everything and had heard conclusively from all "known" terrorists that none of them had done anything.

            In which case of course they would know of Bin Laden's whereabouts too...

            If they "know" that much then of course why don't they just send in troops and DEAL with all these terrorism sources whose doings/dealings of which "intelligence" supposedly informs them?  

            This is reducing it to the absurd, of course.  

            Just because they can't know it is not terrorism.  Unless...!!!

            We need to start questioning the relationships that yield all this "intelligence" on which they rely.

            This is ridiculous.

            Another problem with this statement:

            Officials said that the recovery operation could take three to five days

            .
            What recovery aspect?  I personally called the Coast Guard three times.  I have been repeatedly told that it may take months to get the debris out of the river.

            Meanwhile no boats can possibly pass through that closed ten mile stretch.  Now indeed that may not amount to a breach national security interests at this moment, but to just shut down and strangle a river?  This is not a problem which will be resolved in days.  Critical evidence gained from manual examination of the pieces of the collapsed bridge can not be seen until it is seen - until they are brought out of the river and into broad daylight for inspection - and what is in the water will be there, by the Coast Guard's word, for months.

            DHS does not KNOW anything.  They just say so.

            Why???!!!  Is this NYT report somehow false as Reuters' turned out to be?  This is insane.  

            by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:23:57 AM PDT

            •  3 to 5 days

              yes, I'm pretty sure on the news I watched, the official said it would be much longer than that. He mentioned how difficult it would be to even lift some of the bridge to discover what might be under it. Not a 3 day job.

              by OLinda on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:35:32 AM PDT

            •  Gee - is that the same 6 months

              to win the Iraq war or 6-12 months to "fix" NOLA?

              by madgranny on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:04:43 AM PDT

    •  My first response

      when DHS said it wasn't terrorism was that it seemed like they were saying "not our terrorist act.  Ours is scheduled for later in the summer."

      Truthfully the fact that the first thought of most Americans was terrorism means that the Bush plan is working.  They pump up the fear until every shadow is a terrorist and every action is nefarious.  I can't trust a thing they say and that frightens me because I know there are terrorists out there who will strike again.  We need to get back to a place where we can sort through legitimate fears and irrational ones, we need a return to the age of reason.  The bridge probably fell because like far too many bridges in this country, maintenance was deferred in order to keep taxes low.

      by pgm 01 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:08:20 AM PDT

      •  the only way

        anyone! at! all! could conclusively say no one else did it is if they did it themselves.  Same goes for DHS.

        we need a return to the age of reason.

        Right on.  People just nod head to talking point.  No one seems to be doing much reasoning, on either side of the tube.

        by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:49:19 AM PDT

    •  depends upon how one classifies 'terror'

      I'd say the lack of government funding to keep our roads and bridges safe is a form of "terrorism".

      To the people who died or are injured, it really makes little difference if the direct cause was a bomb or simply a lack of care to ensure they would be safe.

      There are over 70,000 bridges in this country right now that are deemed to be in worse condition than that bridge that collapsed.

      Here's some local flavor.

      http://www.koco.com/...

      http://www.courant.com/...

      http://news.enquirer.com/...

      http://www.ocregister.com/...

      How's that for terror?

      by shpilk on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:45:03 AM PDT

    •  Terrorists want you to *know* it's terrorism

      That's the whole point.

      They won't bother with being sneaky about it, and they'll immediately claim responsibility.

      If there's no one claiming credit with a half hour over something as possible as a bridge collapse, then it's not terrorism.

      So stop the fear-mongering already.

      by admiralh on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:50:35 PM PDT

      •  not my point

        stop the fear-mongering already

        The point is that this gives the lie to the war on terra paradigm.  No way can they make assumptions according to their own terms.  Yet they have done that.

        by stonemason on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:39:24 PM PDT

    •  Who needs terrorists

      ...when you've got crumbling infrastructure and Republicans in office to starve infrastructure repairs?

      by eyeswideopen on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

  •  Bean must go

    She has consistently voted with the Pubbies.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:21:04 AM PDT

    •  I know.

      I can't stand her. I wish I lived in her district, then maybe I could do something about it other than write emails and letters and phone calls.

      by TheBlaz on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:41:09 AM PDT

    •  all the Dogs need to go

      they are all pubbies and not real Democrats.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:07:25 AM PDT

      •  Public discourse builds legitimacy for good

        policy.  I wonder if there is a way the dKos community could get more folks from blue dog districts to participate in this site?  Any ideas?

        by TheFatLadySings on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:18:06 AM PDT

        •  Sure

          nothing earth shaking, but if you find one such person, they can find others.  The net*roots* works by net*works*

          by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:27:51 AM PDT

        •  Calling them names

          That'll work!

          Reserve your name calling for the truly hopeless, like Feinstein.

          Good question large woman.

          by Duckman GR on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:29:33 AM PDT

          •  yes

            and Feinstein is the new Lieberman, but do you honestly think you can change all of those on the Blue Dog Coalition?

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:22:45 AM PDT

            •  We can bloody well try. n/t

              by bablhous on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:54:21 AM PDT

          •  Speaking of Senators - Jim Webb

            voted for this bill. He won by the narrowest of margins...BUT he is not up for re-election for 6 years. How do we determine which Senators...and how long must we wait to unseat them?

            by madgranny on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:08:01 AM PDT

  •  i see the esteemed mister lampson,

    from texas, made the cowards list. he seems to be the golden boy for the u.s. senate primary nominee. let us have a say in that.

    by AltruisticSkeptic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:53:20 AM PDT

•  To pose a new quote

  Fight harder, fight smarter!

  by Owllwoman on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:20:38 AM PDT

  •  To pose an old quote: RIGHT ON! n/t

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:22:52 AM PDT

    •  Now when the netroots has the power to take a

      diary like this and go out and draft a good Democratic candidate in those 7 districts and fund 7 competitive primary races we will have the mojo necessary to really change the Democratic party from within.

      by Ken in Tex on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:36:02 AM PDT

      •  One thing at a time

        let's find some candidates, then we'll raise some money and some awareness.  We do awareness really well.

        by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:37:37 AM PDT

•  My bigger disappointment

  is the Senate, which is supposed to be the slow and deliberate body, with all sorts of parliamentary tools to help delay rash action.

  by Elwood Dowd on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:24:49 AM PDT

  •  well, I am limited to one diary a day

    if you want to do something similar on the Senate, that would be great!

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:30:03 AM PDT

    •  I was particularly impressed by your pragmatism

      While I think it is not necessarily a vote that would have put someone in a marginal district at risk of losing the next election, (Are there any polls out there to suggest voting this down was/is a losing position? My "gut" tells me that Bush's destruction of the Constitution is not quite as wholesome American as it once was.) the background on those who are in clearly safe districts is great to have.

      I live in CA.  Pete Stark fought Nixon back in the day and he is with us 100%.

      But Diane Feinstein?  Yes, she has always been more moderate than one would like, but this vote was just plain dumb.

      1/8th of the population of the US, CA, was just misrepresented by Ms. Feinstein and us Californians ought to express our opinions.

      Thanks for doing this.

      by 7November on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:52:37 AM PDT

      •  Thank you

        I like to channel my rage in ways that might be productive.

        by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:00:26 AM PDT

        •  And thank you

          For this most informative diary!

          The overall analysis is right on target--I agree to fight harder and smarter and look at the overall big picture!

          Again, many thanks for the diary--tipped and rec'd.

          by Wary on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:40:04 AM PDT

      •  I've got a word for DiFi and it ain't

        'moderate.'

        by bablhous on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:56:22 AM PDT

  •  and besides that

    any Senator who felt strongly about the Constitution & the 4th Ammendment could have filibustered.

    `````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:29:49 AM PDT

  •  The senate reminds me of a tarpit

    and Republicans without responsibility secrete the tar.

    Senator Susie Collins, you listening? Tom Allen's got your number, and he's got my vote.

    by zic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:59 AM PDT

  •  Senate.gov is not posting the roll call

    I just checked, and while they claim to wait an hour, it's been over 24.  We'll have to do it manually.

    by chadlupkes on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:56:04 AM PDT

•  I live in IL-08

  and Melissa Bean will definitely be hearing from me.

  by thursdays child on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:28:22 AM PDT

  •  Good! n/t

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:30:20 AM PDT

  •  I live in IL-14..

    ..but you can bet your life i will be doing anything i can for anybody apposing IL-03 ot IL-08. Let any other Dems in these areas know they have the support of the netroots.

    by back2basics on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:12:35 AM PDT

    •  I'm not betting my life

      but we are all betting our nation!

      Go for it!

      by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:18:31 AM PDT

      •  It amy well be the same thing, given the crew in

        power in DC.

        by bablhous on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:57:28 AM PDT

  •  I live in Maryland and donated to Bean

    when she ran the first time.  I can't say I've been excited about her voting record once she was elected though.

    And I'm proud to say all six of our Democratic representatives voted against this bill.  Sorry to say one of our senators didn't, though.  I guess it's time to put in a visit to her local office.

    by Lujane on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:18:05 AM PDT

•  Artur Davis would be a prime target

  He represents a majority Black District in Alabama and the GOP would have no chance to win it. He is becoming a big disapointment as he seems to want to following the Harold Ford model so he can run for State Wide office some day.

  Challenging him would mean partnering with some major Black grass-roots orgs. Otherwise he will run a campaign basd on outsiders raising money to take him out (sort of a Blue dog McKinnley from Georgia style campaign).

  I don't live in Alabama but this is my view of this race. I'm also not sure where he falls on a lot of other issues????

  by dopper0189 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:36:38 AM PDT

  •  He doesn't fall where we want him to

    On national journal he gets a liberalism score of 60%tile (that's toward the right end of the Democratic party).  

    Progressive punch gives him a 79.8.  He does particularly poorly on the environment, checks on corporate power, and justice.

    He should go

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:42:10 AM PDT

    •  Artur "what line? legal?" Davis...

      I appreciated his questioning of Monica Goodling, but when he voted last night to expand Gonzo's power he crossed the line.
      
      
      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:27:41 AM PDT

      •  Artur's Rationale

        I have found Artur Davis to be very articulate along with having some considerable personal charisma as well.  His background is quite impressive (Harvard law and civil rights attorney).  This makes his vote on FISA especially disappointing.

        But I have to assume a big factor in Davis' decision on the FISA vote is that he has plans on running for statewide office at some point in the near future.  I'm not condoning this because it infuriates me when elected officials sell-out and vote for reasons that are at odds with their values or conscience.  But ... it is what it is.

        by Norm DePlume on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:57:00 AM PDT

        •  He is not a liberal by any means

          I think it would be great if he ran against Jeff Sessions for Senate and let a more liberal Democrat win this seat

          by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:39:44 AM PDT

•  On the rec list

  with 7 comments, of which I think 4 are mine! :-)

  Thanks!

  by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:37:00 AM PDT

•  Heath Shuler, NC-11

  Though we live one state further south, we did some work and raised some money for this man. He beat a vicious, entrenched Republican named Charles Taylor. That's a man who never met a lie he did not like. Terrible record on everything. Heath Shuler is a good man, and by far the best alternative in that booby-trap (for a Democrat) district. I do hope his voting record improves.

  Brilliant diary, plf515. Recommended, and thank you!

  by BeninSC on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:42:54 AM PDT

  •  Thanks!

    and you're welcome!

    Shuler got a 69.90 at progressive punch.

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:47:31 AM PDT

  •  I voted for him,

    but I am truly disgusted by this vote.

    Perhaps Patsy Keever (who narrowly lost against Charles Taylor in '04) should offer a primary challenge.

    by polecat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:38:13 AM PDT

    •  I am disgusted by it, too.

      I am not one of Mr. Shuler's constituents, as a South Carolinian, but I would take him any day over my rep (whose progressive punch score is 8.23). I would have a conversation with him about this vote.

      I liked Patsy Keever a great deal, but she did not win, and, without incumbency, it is unlikely she would in a second run. I know Taylor would drool over that as a rematch.

      I do hope Mr. Shuler will be open to better votes in the future. I'd want to talk with him in person (probably several times) before deciding on a primary challenge against him. Buffalo Girl just did a good diary about this exact approach, on the rec list now.

      by BeninSC on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:23:34 PM PDT

•  DailyKOS is being talked about by Brian York

  Lets all call in.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:43:41 AM PDT

  •  Who is Brian York? n/t

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:47:58 AM PDT

    •  I don't know for sure but,

      he has said that DailyKOS cannot be judged on one or two comments. I believe that He is a WH correspondent with the Revue. He seems to be sticking up for us.

      by Owllwoman on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:10:35 AM PDT

      •  Byron York of the National Review...

        ...mainly.

        "Byron York is here making a nuisance of himself (Mike Stark apparently challenged him to a debate on abortion, but York declined). So we'll have some wingnuttery at the panel."

        — emptywheel
        Greetings from Yearly Kos
        June 09, 2006

        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:19:58 AM PDT

    •  Byron York

      I was half listening

      He attended yk2006 - brave of him to do that

      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:32:53 AM PDT

•  About Harry Mitchell

  I was in Phoenix last year shortly before the election and was reading the local alternative rag.  Their headline was:  "Sure JD Hayworth's a buffoon, but...Harry Mitchell?"

  Nothing surprises me anymore.

  by dfb1968 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:52:13 AM PDT

•  Thank you for some rational analysis

  At a time when we all, myself included, are in a primal scream of frustration.

  The safe Dem seats must be challenged in the primaries.

  MUST.

  by RKS on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:56:04 AM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    I'm a statistician.  Analysis is what I do.  I try for sane analysis.

    We need the screams, too, but let's have them screaming something sensible! :-)

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:01:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree that safe Dems who don't vote with

    Dems should be challenged in the primary.  But I don't agree they should be challenged based on one vote, as upset as I am about this vote.

    We ought to look at votes on other issues (e.g. the surge) as well.  

    by Joelarama on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:33:48 AM PDT

    •  This was a BIG vote

      and votes don't usually stand alone.

      Let's look at national journal liberalism scores

      Jim Cooper TN-05         63.7        
      Jim Costa  CA-20         59.2
      Artur Davis AL-07        60.0  
      Brian Higgins NY-27      69.2
      Dan Lipinski IL-03       64.0
      Charles Wilson OH-06      NA      

      oops, only 6; I miscounted before.  But these are the right wing of the Democratic party, Higgins a little less than the others

      by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:48:00 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the numbers!

        I've been reading, repeatedly, from certain interests that we should support treachery because these so-called Democrats because they support other Democratic issues. Your statical analysis proves unequivocally  that these traitors never represented Democratic issues, much less the interests of the American people.
        

        by James Kresnik on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:04:50 AM PDT

•  "Stick with Massachusetts

  the hell with the other 49" was a bumper sticker (or something like that) back in the Nixon fall, as Massachusetts was the only state to vote Democrat that Presidential election.

  Looking at the list, the bumper sticker seems appropriate again.  We're all Dem and not one crossed the line to Authoritarian Land.

  The worst thing about this Friedman Unit is that it pretty much destroys the possibility of bringing Congressional action against Gonzo or Bush, eh?

  Democracy took a gut-shot; the credit crunch struck hard.

  Not a good week in America.  Don't know how many "not-a-goog-weeks" we have left, honestly.

  by Pundit Hater on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:13:15 AM PDT

  •  During the Watergate mess my bumper sticker read

    "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts."

    To be fair though, while not a state (yet?), DC went for McGovern, too.

    by Lujane on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:25:18 AM PDT

•  Great diary

  Good work.

  by rock the ground on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:14:40 AM PDT

•  The flip side:

  There are vulnerable Dems in tough districts who nonetheless opposed FISA. For example, Carol Shea-Porter in NH-01. She's a freshman who won 51%-49% in a district that Bush won in 2004 with 51%. She'll face a strong challenger in 2008.

  Candidates like her deserve consideration from Kossacks who can offer contributions.

  by Elwood Dowd on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:16:26 AM PDT

  •  That would be a great diary, too!

    Here's a list of good but vulnerable Democrats.  This list was made up before the FISA vote, and I haven't checked what these people did, but it's a good starting place

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:22:29 AM PDT

    •  Good list. Everyoone on it

      voted against the FISA bill.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:35:05 AM PDT

      •  Consistently good Democrats! n/t

        by plf515 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:48:48 AM PDT

  •  Equally true for John Hall (NY-19) n/t

    by artebella on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:25:01 AM PDT

    •  Elwood, can you add to that list and diary it?

      I'm sure there are others who belong on the list, too, and I think we should strongly promote a list like that.

      by neroden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:49:32 AM PDT

•  Since Nadler is also my Congressman

  I am going to keep this polite, however, I get a little tired of the strawmen thrown up at those of us who a understandably and justifiably pissed at this DEMOCRATIC Congress that, for the second time in 9 weeks, undermined the rights and desires of the American people and then ran out of town in the dead of night for vacation.

  What strawmen, you might ask?  well there's this:

  We can't do it by leaving the party, or the country, or by burying our heads in the sand.

  or this:

  Do you want them replaced by Republicans?

  Nowhere, in any of the comments that I read last night (and I was on here well past midnight) did I see anyone talk of leaving the party or the country or wanting Rethugs to win.  Nowhere.  

  What I did read, and what I subscribe to, is that there are lots of people who are justifiably asking just what we're getting for our support, both financial and logistical.  And while we all bought into the whole 'stop whining' bit for the first bit of capitualtion back in May, this is a different situation.  this is not a situation where 60 votes were needed in the Senate, indeed not even a majority was needed.  Only 40 votes could have stopped this; we got 28.  28!!!

  I do think that while many of your points are great, there needs to be pressure put on the leadership (and that means the DSCC and the DCCC) from an orga