Cowards

While all of this was talked about last week and through the weekend, here's another reminder of those Democrats too cowardly to stand up to the unitary executive.

In the House:

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia)
Melissa Bean  (8th Illinois)
Dan Boren  (2nd Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd  (2nd Florida)
Christopher Carney  (10th Pennsylvania)
Ben Chandler  (6th Kentucky)
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee)
Jim Costa (20th California)
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama)
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis  (4th Tennessee)
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana)
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana)
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota)
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana)
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas)
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia)
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah)
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana)
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas)
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas)
John Salazar (3rd Colorado)
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina)
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio)
John Tanner (8th Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi)
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio)

In the Senate:

Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Tom Carper (Delaware)
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Jim Webb (Virginia)

For a bunch of people who want to strut around acting "tough", this crowd sure ran around like a whipped puppy once Big Bad Mr. 25% said "boo!" Scary!

Of course this is shameful and ridiculous, but it's also a helpful reminder that our efforts to transform our Democratic Party continue to be a long-term project.

Don't let 2006 fool you. We made progress, but we didn't win the war. That'll take far more time. Decades, perhaps. But we'll eventually teach this crowd that capitulation isn't strength, that caving in to fear-mongering to eliminate our civil liberties isn't strength, that giving more powers to executive branches run amok isn't strength, that effectively endorsing the notion of a unitary executive isn't strength.

They just proved, without a doubt, that for all the talk of a "strong" Democratic Party, we've still got a long ways to go.

(Of course, only two Republicans in all of Congress opposed this new administration power grab, but then again, we don't expect better out of them...)

•  is it worth or even possible to truly reform?

  Or should we start/support another one?

  by borkitekt on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:31:46 PM PDT

  •  not the first time I see Jim Webb's name

    on a disgusting piece of legislation.  Is this why we worked and voted these bunch of bastards into office? Ah, how could I forget that Webb's a republican at heart!

    by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:01:25 PM PDT

    •  This is what progressives "won".

      I for one, feel sufficiently rewarded.

      by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:03:25 PM PDT

    •  Webb is lucky

      He's a newly minted senator, so he's got over five years to rescue his reputation from this monumental gaffe.

      Not so lucky are the "Democratic" House members who fell into this trap. They're just gone. Where'd they go? Who knows, but the pigs are squealing real loud.

      by jimbo92107 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:21:32 PM PDT

    •  State of the Union response

      Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union is a better explanation of the values that we Democrats ought to rally behind to toss the GOPers out of power than anything set forth by any of the Democratic presidential candidates.

      by elgringoviejo on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:07 PM PDT

  •  Let's pick 5 House primary challengers...

    from blue districts and properly fund them.  Lipinski in IL-03 is an obvious one, as W got 33% there in '04, and a challenger is already running.  We need to find 4 other opportunities.

    1000 Kossacks giving $25 in each race would provide seed money of $25k.  2000 Kossacks giving $50 in each race would provide $100k, which is real $ in a House race.

    We can make a real difference if we focus our energies and pool our resources.

    by RFK Lives on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

•  Looking at these lists

  Should we be surprised?  I can't wait until the day we have real Democrats in both houses.  

  by fabooj on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

  •  There are some fine friends

    on the list; I don't think calling them "cowards" is, well, productive (I know - it was in the post, not in your comment)

    by rock the ground on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:34:01 PM PDT

    •  Friends?

      These people are mostly GOP-lite.  I get moderate Democrats.  I consider myself a moderate Democrat.  But there is no way in hell any Democrat, regardless of stripe, could vote for this bill. It's a smack in the face for everything we (as Democrats) fight for.  Fully expecting votes like this is why I didn't contribute a dime, time or whatever to (re)elect some of these people.  I knew that they'd cave and they did.  Great, they gave a majority, but what does it matter when they vote with Republicans on the most dreadful bills.  My focus, once again, will be on fighting for more Democrats who'd fight for me.

      by fabooj on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:40:59 PM PDT

      •  complicit, all of them

        not scared, not stupid - complicit.
        Money rules!!!

        by lisastar on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:49:05 PM PDT

        •  Is it money?

          I would say it's fear of the "weak on terror" card.

          by echatwa on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:21:28 PM PDT

          •  I don't buy it

            how many are up for election next year???

            Watch how many times "fear mongering" gets bandied about in the beltway PR the next couple of weeks. Hey, it's not so bad being called a coward when you've got corporate money to go home to.

            by lisastar on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:37:32 PM PDT

            •  All in the House

              And if you notice closely, many of the 41 are vulnerable freshmen. In the Senate, some are up next year, and the rest are worried about Republicans' long memory, anyway. It's just plain, simple cowardice. I don't see how it benefits them in terms of money, though.

              by echatwa on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:46:38 PM PDT

              •  Two wings of one Party

                The Money Power Party. The blue dogs aren't democrats, they are rethug-lite. And we are headed for more in 08.

                by lisastar on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:05:22 PM PDT

                •  Of course they are rethug-lite

                  But it has more to do with cowardice than with money. And how are we headed for more in 08? I see us winning more seats in Congress through a combination of defeating the remaining Republicans in blue districts with liberal Democrats, and of course some Blue Dogs getting elected in red districts. However, this should be a net gain for us (no one can doubt that 2006 for example was a net gain, right?). In the meantime, we could improve the situation even further if we ran primaries against all Blue Dogs and DLCers in blue or swing districts, resulting in the defeat of some of them and scaring the rest of them into a left turn on policy. Just look at the wonders that primary threats have worked on Jane Harman, Ellen Tauscher (who has signed a letter calling for defunding of the war), and especially Al Wynn (who is now cosponsoring Kucinich's impeachment resolution against Cheney). And, most of all, don't forget that we are on our way to electing a liberal Democratic president in 2008, which will render the Blue Dogs mostly irrelevant.

                  In short, I wouldn't be that pessimistic at all.

                  by echatwa on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:01:43 PM PDT

            •  Klobuchar (MN) is NOT up for re-election until

              '12.  I'm already thinking maybe Amy needs some primary challenges.  We have several good people, really good people, vying for Norm's Senate seat.  They should maybe be eying Amy's as well.

              by feelingsickinMN on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:54:48 PM PDT

      •  Damn straight

        I haven't given them a cent or a second. They need to prove to me that they are going to actually represent values of the American left (which is right-leaning if not far-right by comparison internationally), and so far all I've seen has made me happy I have never supported them.

        by Jormungand on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:14:49 PM PDT

        •  My little protest

          Having my email subscribed to almost every Democratic congressmen's and candidates email list, I've been clicking on the "remove" button since the latest capitulation on FISA. They don't seem to be listening to our phone calls and letters, maybe if they see a huge number of "unsubscribes" from their email lists, they'll start to take notice! Don't know if it will help, but it's my latest attempt!

          by reflectionsv37 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:33:45 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely how I feel about it.

        I just don't get it. I keep trying to understand but where does this capitulation and enabling end?

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:48:06 PM PDT

      •  Not that Simple

        Barb Mikulski is not GOP-lite and yet, she voted for this monstrosity because some Admiral scared her in the Intelligence Committee meetings.

        It's nauseating.

        by stephdray on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:11:12 PM PDT

    •  Jim Webb is a huge disappointment.

      But we're tired of being told that it's "not productive" to be truthful.  That itself is cowardice.

      by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:45:13 PM PDT

      •  I am disappointed in him

        but, I have a real hard time calling Jim Webb a Coward. I also have to shake my head at those that have stooped to calling him a traitor.

        This was a bad vote, for sure, but....cowardly or traitorous? I am not convinced of that. I think that it was just a stupid vote, a bad decision.

        by carolinadreamer on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:51:11 PM PDT

        •  He doesn't get a free pass...not the first time

          he's done this...recall his vote for funding.

          Any further votes like this and I think he might be moving from "disappointment" to "MISTAKE" in my political rolodex.

          by ksh01 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:02:01 PM PDT

          •  No one should get a free pass. But

            "coward" and "traitor" are words people are throwing out because of the depth of their anger at the abuses of FISA, and while I share the anger I don't find either word appropriate for Webb, nor in all likelihood for some of the others.

            by Fiona West on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:27:59 PM PDT

            •  yeah

              They have some balls calling a Navy Cross winner a coward, and I am including Kos in this.

              Reality, ok, here is some real reality.  We did not care that Webb was conservative during the election.  The Netroots supported Webb because he was against the Iraq War, hated Bush, and could defeat Felix Allen.  That is reality.

              Anyone who is "suprised" by Webb did no research before buying.  

              by TurkeyCreek on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:32:26 PM PDT

            •  riding on a reputation

              can only take him so far.  It's time for him to live up to his reputation and history.

              by ksh01 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:39:25 PM PDT

          •  And George Allen would be better?

            Do you believe anyone to the left of Webb would have won last year?

            If there's anyone I can give a pass to, it's Webb. Look at the number of Virginians who work in DC and are convinced there is an attack imminent.

            by admiralh on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:32:36 PM PDT

            •  who knows?

              each candidate is an individual and has his/her own appeal and ways of motivating folks to vote for them.

              You identify the least reason to vote the way he did.  It's time to stand up for what we know is right, not what people manipulated by the fear factor want.  I don't think Webb has done that.  And it's the second time.  On funding he bought into the troops will wither and die if you don't pass funding now argument.

              If anyone in the Senate knows this isn't true, it's a former secretary.

              by ksh01 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:39:03 PM PDT

        •  He'll make it right.

          Sure as the sun rising.

          by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

        •  He isn't a traitor or coward. Just a republican.

          Or at least that is what it seems like.

          by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:04:47 PM PDT

          •  He's a COC guy

            And Bush is still President, and CiC.

            FISA needed fixing, DNI McConnell is respected by Webb (and others). Webb takes national security seriously, and he believes in the chain of command, Admiral McConnell said he needed this.  

            by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:23:56 PM PDT

            •  So he was just following orders?

              Small comfort.

              by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:29:48 PM PDT

              •  Yeah. Protect the country from attack. n/t

                by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

                •  How about protecting the rights of citizens?

                  Being safe without being free is another small comfort.

                  by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:38:43 PM PDT

                  •  What do you know?

                    About what was in play and at risk here?  I wouldn't have voted for it, but I don't know jack about what DNI McConnell briefed them with.

                    Jim Webb is no coward.

                    by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:43:26 PM PDT

                    •  What do you know?

                      You can't win an argument by claiming there is a secret benevolence to Webb's actions. This isn't elementary school or a church.

                      by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:47:13 PM PDT

                      •  Apparently, what you don't.

                        That select members of our representative government are briefed on a need-to-know basis regarding national security matters and they agreed that this needed to happen as an interim 6 mo. legislation.

                        by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:54:38 PM PDT

                        •  Yes. Trust the Bush Government.

                          They always tell the truth about intelligence and the like...

                          by Common Cents on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:56:21 PM PDT

                          •  No, trust the Director of National Intelligence

                            And the officer in charge of intelligence: Admiral Michael McConnell.  Protecting us from Bush / Gonzales use or misuse of this authority comes next.

                            by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:05:15 PM PDT

                    •  argumentum ad ignorantiam. Are you Brittany

                      Spears?  It's the same argument she made.

                      by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

                •  If you think this bill will protect this country

                  from attack, then you have no clue.  This bill itself is an attack on this country as a meaningful entity.

                  by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:10:46 PM PDT

            •  Webb did not swear an oath to the DNI

              The first phrase of Webb's Senate oath is:

              I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

              The consitutution is under attack by domestic enemies; by voting to cut the Fourth Amendment off at the knees, Webb has betrayed his oath.  With the best of intentions, I'm quite sure.

              I agree in Webb's case that his vote is based on his being a "COC guy", a severe failing in a Senator.  I believe Webb is educable, I hope his constituents will vigorously educate him and help him get to the point that he regrets this vote.

              -Jay-

              by JayBat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:29:55 PM PDT

              •  What Webb said was...

                "There is near uniform, bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FISA to reflect modern telecommunications and information technology.  We must do so in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights. But we must also remember that the terrorist threat to the nation is extremely serious. I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans."

                you can read his complete statement here.

                by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:39:49 PM PDT

                •  Here's more of what he said:

                  They [Feinstein, Bayh, Nelson, et al] chose to give significant weight and deference to the intelligence community on FISA reform, and so did I.

                  That is how he acted, which is what really matters, I'm sure you'll agree. The "intelligence community" of the USA has done bugger all to deserve deference of any kind in matters relating to violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens. Feh.

                  -Jay-

                  by JayBat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:00:33 PM PDT

                  •  You are mixing these things up.

                    The "intelligence community" of the USA has done bugger all to deserve deference of any kind in matters relating to violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens.

                    Which is probably why the authority dies in 6 months.

                    The 'deference' Webb refers to is communication intercept and protecting the nation from terrorist attack.

                    by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:19:21 PM PDT

                    •  No mixup at all.

                      protecting nation from terrorist attack.

                      Nonsense.  That's a Bush/Cheney talking point. FISA previously allowed "listen first, get permission later".  What the Bush administration appears (from their actions) to want is unlimited domestic data/voice surveillance w/o judicial review.  This is the next step towards that (domestic on one side).  It's shameful, but unlikely you'll ever agree w/me about that.  I've higher hopes for Sen. Webb. :-)

                      -Jay-

                      by JayBat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:42:12 PM PDT

                      •  Now you are making stuff up

                        To fit your fears. You, like many here make remarkable assumptions regarding the wants of executive Bush. But you won't win an argument that foreign nationals in the US have the same right of privacy, or judicial oversight as do US citizens.  Which is the point of this legislation.  

                        Where we might agree is that the Bush gang is not to be trusted, so we must verify that they are not using this on citizen to citizen communication.  Sadly, your fears for privacy don't stand a chance against the fear of terrorism.  We have to manage that until America gets a more capable President and Democratic Congress.

                        by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:52:40 PM PDT

                •  Then Webb contradicted himself

                  I hope this vote was a rookie mistake and not a sign of an "always trust the president" mentality.

                  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:14:34 PM PDT

                  •  No he didn't.

                    Jim Webb gave DNI McConnell what he said he needed to do his job (on an interim basis) because Admiral McConnell has a tough, critical command and is fully accountable for detecting a pending terrorist attack.

                    Webb does not trust the President, and that is why he "remain(s) fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans."

                    by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:31:01 PM PDT

            •  He takes national security seriuosly, and he also

              -- along with a number of other Democrats -- believes that there actually has been a gap in FISA coverage that needs to be fixed. It's clear he believes that a temporary fix had to be tolerated as a proper one was not yet worked out.

              This is why four out of 8 Democrats on the intelligence committee voted for the six month fix:
              Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson.

              Webb says:

              We now have six months to work in earnest to bring full accountability to the process.... I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans.

              I accept that Webb believed that the gap in intelligence could allow an attack on the US to take place.  I don't believe it was "fear of being seen as soft on terror."  I accept that it was the belief that the intelligence situation required a fix now.

              I disagree with his decision. It puts too much trust in intelligence experts and too little weight on the severity of attacks on the Constitution now taking place under Bush and Cheney.

              But I won't discount his honesty, nor the honesty of the four on the Senate intelligence committee, until I see whether they do in fact fight to establish full accountability and repair the damage this bill has done.

              Webb's statement is
              here.

              by Fiona West on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM PDT

              •  Absolutely right.

                And no one should doubt that Webb will hold Admiral McConnell and the Whitehouse to a high standard regarding THEIR duties.

                by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:42:48 PM PDT

        •  so just because he's ex-military he's above

          criticism?

          bullshit.  He is not getting any money or effort from me EVER again.  And neither is anyone else on that list.

          Worst is Amy Klobuchar.  I thought she was a genuine liberal.  From Minnesota that was a very easy vote to make.  Certainly much easier than Webb's, him being in Virginia with a lot of NSA employees.

          Dianne Feinstein is just showing what I knew all along:  She is nothing but a DLC AIPAC hack.  

          I don't like litmus-tests either, but upholding the goddam Constitution is not a litmus-test, it is a REQUIREMENT.

          by HillaryGuy on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:13:56 PM PDT

          •  It's sad, but...

            aside from Feingold I don't see a lot of 'real' liberals (yes, that term has a different meaning for everyone I'm sure) left in the Senate, period.

            by Jormungand on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

            •  Feingold, Sanders, Boxer, and, perhaps Brown.

              That's about it.  But from what repukes say, the Senate is overwhelmingly socialist.  God, I wish!!!

              by HillaryGuy on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:31:33 PM PDT

              •   Boxer voted "absent" on this bill.

                So far, no explanation why.

                by Jon Meltzer on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM PDT

      •  Jim Webb is not a coward

        by rock the ground on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:59:33 PM PDT

        •  Well

          maybe just a little insecure?  His vote wasn't based on the Constitution, that's for sure.

          Virginia is a tough state and he won it by a slim margin... probably he thought he was protecting his right flank.  

          Webb's whole macho Scots-Irish heritage love fest also speaks of a little insecurity, understandable I suppose at a time when the US is becoming more diverse, women have more power than ever, and immigration is such a hot button issue. Those Mexicans sure made him... well, insecure... during the immigration reform debate.  He may not be a coward, but I don't think of him as particularly heroic either.

          by ivorybill on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:28:00 PM PDT

          •  macho v. manly

            Macho is getting in a bar fight.  Earning the Navy Cross and numerous other medals as a platoon commander in the First battalion of the Fifth Marines is manly.

            by elgringoviejo on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:42:48 PM PDT

        •  Then how about "ignoramus"?

          Webb caved in to the oldest trick in the tyrant's book--invoking a scary and mysterious threat from somewhere beyond.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:16:07 PM PDT

      •  Ronald Reagan is his favorite president

        by Jormungand on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:15:29 PM PDT

        •  Wrong. Andrew Jackson

          He walked away from Reagan.

          by Bubby on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:31:01 PM PDT

      •  I wrote to him and told him

        I was shocked at his vote and that I couldn't believe that he bought the scare tatics of Bush and told him that he was on his own, that I and others like me would never contribute to him again.  I knew he was too conservative for me.  He also made nice with Bush a couple of weeks ago, so I don't know what is going on with him.

        by LimosineLiberal on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:20:47 PM PDT

    •  With friends like these...

      ...you know the rest

      by Strat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:17:32 PM PDT

•  Progress Is Slow

  But We'll Get There!  We have to choice!

  by DemMarineVet on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:31:54 PM PDT

  •  err we have NO choice

    by DemMarineVet on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

  •  Indiana has a chance

    to elect a real Progressive Democrat in IN-06. (As opposed to the Blue Dogs that won in 2006.)

    Barry Welsh is running again.  Even though Pence outspent him 21-1 Barry managed to get 40% of the vote in 2006. This time around he's got a cadre of volunteers already built and ready to get involved, so with some funding Barry has a real shot at unseating Mike Pence. Show Barry some love!  

    Here's a link to Barry's Act Blue page. His candidate website is still in development. But he's a member of DailyKOS so you can read his diaries to learn more about him.

    His wife is also a member of Daily Kos. She posts as Congressional Candidates Wife.

    by Hawksana on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:52:40 PM PDT

    •  Good luck to Barry Welsh!

      It would be truly rewarding, to say the least, for a progressive candidate to win a district that went 64% for Bush in 2004.

      by echatwa on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:23:37 PM PDT

  •  "Important" newspaper editors agree

    According to Think Progress, "In the past two days, at least nine major newspapers have editorialized against the FISA legislation...."

    If the likes of USA Today and the Rocky Mountain News [see "John Salazar (3rd Colorado)
    ") GET IT, then there's hope that in six months some of these clowns will remember their oath to the Constitution, lose a touch of their fear of Rove, and this abomination can be jettisoned.

    by eztempo on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:07:01 PM PDT

•  Jim Webb???

  To the extent that I know who these people are, a lot of people on this list don't surprise me, but I'm heartbroken by Jim Webb. I had such great hopes for him.

  by Kimball Cross on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:32:29 PM PDT

  •  And Klobuchar and McCaskill as well.

    I'm happy for fellow Kossack Susan S's courageous confrontation with Bill Nelson, but I'm frankly not surprised with that DINO's vote. Actually, after he voted on killing habeas last year, I'm convinced he's a lost cause (and we're stuck with him for 6 more years). :-/

    The new grassroots recruits in the Senate (and in the House), however--such as Webb, McCaskill, and Klobuchar--I would expect to set a good example for standing up for principle. I mean, duh, isn't that what they frickin' RAN ON?

    Arrrgh.

    by boofdah on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:38:31 PM PDT

    •  I Hope McCaskill Enjoys Her Term As A

      Senator. I contributed and worked to get her that seat and if she continues to vote Republican positions on the occupation and destroying the Constitution, I will work twice as hard to see that she is a one term Senator.

      by MO Blue on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:44:28 PM PDT

      •  Exactly...

        my feelings concerning Klobuchar.

        I had high hopes for her.

        So far, between her vote to capitulate on the Iraq supplemental and now on FISA, I pretty much feel she is beyond redemption.

        by Kalakzak on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:55:15 PM PDT

      •  and this is why

        Politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) are one notch below child molestors.

        by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

      •  Claire?!?! Noooooo

        How disappointing! We supported you! I feel cheated on.

        by SnoKat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:28:33 PM PDT

    •  Klobuchar is a particular disappointment

      I'm glad McCaskill won, but I never expected much from her.  But Klobuchar should have known better, and Minnesota is not Missouri.  She could have done the right thing.

      by ivorybill on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:30:51 PM PDT

  •  Ditto to Tim Walz

    He's a good man and ran a tremendous campaign. He was a netroots candidate kicked ass. Of course, I'll still support him, but I'm more than a little disappointed.

    by Shef on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:39:09 PM PDT

  •  Almost enough to make one want to leave

    the reality based community.

    by hcc in VA on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:51:43 PM PDT

    •  And...

      join the Ignorance is Bliss community?

      /snark

      by Kalakzak on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:13:59 PM PDT

      •  There's something to be said for bliss, no?

        by hcc in VA on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:15:10 PM PDT

        •  In and of itself? No.

          I just have a hard time, in a political setting, of ever finding bliss.

          As hard as I sometimes try to escape reality I just can not do it.

          by Kalakzak on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:32:09 PM PDT

          •  Obviously you skipped the bar scene at YKOS n/t

            by hcc in VA on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:14:41 PM PDT

  •  I don't know why people are so surprised

    Did you really think that Virginia was going to elect a liberal Senator? Webb is not a bad guy, and he is certainly much better than the idiot he is replacing, but he is what he is .... a candidate who is far left enough to be a Democrat, but far right enough to get elected in a conservative state.

    If anybody should be disappointed, it's Californian's. Feinstein should know better, and there is no way her seat is on the line no matter how she votes. She's one of the most popular politicians in the state. Her name on that list is the one thing that makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes. Feinstein is not a liberal by any stretch, but she's not a right wing supporter either. I often disagree with her positions, but ... I don't understand this one.

    by dianem on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

    •  We Californian's know Feinstein

      This vote doesn't surprise any of us at all.  She always votes like this and needlessly so, as you mentioned above.  
       

      by fabooj on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:04:04 PM PDT

      •  I am a Californian

        And I'm no fan of Feinstein. But this seems beyond what I expect of her.

        by dianem on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:09:12 PM PDT

      •  It's almost expected

        Honestly, as a Californian it is rather unsurprising that Feinstein voted in this direction. When kos posted this list I was hunting for her name, I knew it'd be there.

        She just wins elections simply because she's been around forever. That's all.

        by cynicalliberal on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM PDT

  •  Jim Webb?? was my response

    to seeing his name on that list.  In all the supportive blogs and comments written for him here ,are there any quotes from him,  on his stance regarding wiretapping?  

    by ilyana on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:33:19 PM PDT

•  Melissa Bean

  was always a happy participant of enabling Bush.

  She needs to go.

  by TheBlaz on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:32:43 PM PDT

  •  So has her DINO friend Lipinski

    God I hate this guy.

    by Southside on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:50:08 PM PDT

    •  Listen Illinoisians

      Target Lipinski, not Bean.  

      I know, I know, Bean is a disappointment.  But Lipinski inherited his office from his dad, his district is quite blue, and he is a natural born fool.  Lipinski would be vulnerable to a real primary challenge by a good progressive - who could win.  

      Bean - yea, she's a jerk.  But the Illinois Republican Party will not be moribund forever, and her district has some bad numbers for a Democrat.  They can mount a credible challenger in Bean's district.  If we get a progressive challenger to take on Lipinski, the GOP won't be able to do much about it in the general election.  

      by ivorybill on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:34:16 PM PDT

•  So how much of a free pass do we give them?

  I notice that the first name on the list, Altmire, is in a district that is very shaky for Democrats.  Do we rally behind him and try to give him some backbone, or try to find someone else?

  by I on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:33:06 PM PDT

  •  But didn't you know

    being a progressive will automatically allow you to win elections, even in deep red areas!

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:35:27 PM PDT

    •  I really don't know how much of a factor

      the conservatism of the constituency is in Altmire's case, just for one example.  It's not really a deep-red district; it's a pretty moderate, "Reagan Democrat" area.  So this may actually be one instance where it really is just cowardice.

      by I on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:14:11 PM PDT

•  So, we should run more candidates

  like the Coward Webb over people like Ford?

  Is that the logic one can get from your last two non-open thread posts?

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:33:12 PM PDT

  •  Ford

    You think Ford would have voted against McConnell-Bond?  Hell, he might have co-sponsored it.

    by looking italian on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

    •  I didn't say that

      I just found it, er, contradictory that kos would hoist Webb up an example of the type of candidate we should run, in contrast to someone like Ford, then turn around and call him a coward a couple hours later.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:44:04 PM PDT

      •  Disappointment is not contradiction.

        It would only be contradiction if Markos knew that Webb would betray us but supported him anyway.

        by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:49:28 PM PDT

        •  No it's not

          If he thinks Webb is a coward, then what is he doing saying that he's a model candidate with which we should model other candidates and campaigns over.

          And he didn't say he was disappointed in Webb. He called him a coward, straight out.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:51:51 PM PDT

          •  So you don't think he's disappointed?

            I'd spend some time challenging your sophistry, but it's not worth my time.

            by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:45:22 PM PDT

            •  I didn't know

              it was a choice between being disappointed and calling him a coward.

              I though that calling him a cowards included a feeling of disappointment.

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:48:08 PM PDT

              •  Indeed, YOU made that a choice.

                "he didn't say he was disappointed in Webb. He called him a coward, straight out."

                Your words, not mine.  How soon you forget.

                by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:14:22 PM PDT

      •  Webb

        Webb isn't mentioned in the "Sad and ridiculous" post.

        by looking italian on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:55:47 PM PDT

        •  not by name but

          Funny, the DLC's top candidate -- Harold Ford himself -- lost even as populist Dems won all over the country, in every region (even in the South).

          What democrat, at least in the Senate, won in the south other than Webb.  I'm not sure there were even many house democrats who won in the south.  I think it's clear who he is talking about here.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:58:36 PM PDT

          •  OK

            But I'm still not seeing the contradiction.  The earlier post was about selfish rhetoric that pisses on the overall Democratic brand.  Webb's FISA justification was hideous, but I still don't see him eating his own as enthusiastically as Ford does.

            by looking italian on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:14:19 PM PDT

            •  I'm not sure

              one should complain about the DLC "eating their own" or saying that candidates should be more like them when people on blogs like this do the exact same thing, except from a different place on the ideological spectrum.

              Dkos is hardly a place that is easy on democrats they don't like.  I could actually argue that the DLC is easier on dems than dkos is.

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:24:14 PM PDT

              •  I think that's probably true.

                We have, at dKos, a nasty tendency to make our Democratic politicians either sacred cows, or toilet bowls.

                by brownsox on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:33:01 PM PDT

                •  and one

                  can go from one group to the other rather quickly.

                  I remember way back when when Boxer was like god on here, then she did a couple things people didn't like and ended up in the toilet group, and I'm not sure she ever has recovered.

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:35:41 PM PDT

              •  "dkos is ... they"

                Your grammar reveals your flawed thinking.  DKos has a membership comprising many individuals, including you.  Had you said "Markos is hardly a person who is easy of democrats he doesn't like", it would at least be a proposition with which one agree or disagree.

                by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:49:47 PM PDT

                •  hardly flawed is all

                  dkos is a collective. even the front page is.  There is no singular here.  I think kos himself has said that he isn't the only one who talks for the blog.

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:51:17 PM PDT

                  •  "is" is singular

                    Apparently you yourself contain multitudes, as you repeatedly contradict yourself.  On the one hand you talk about what DKos "is", who "DKos" is hard on, and then you note that "there is no singular here".  To call your thinking flawed is to be generous.  Members of DKos have a variety of opinions, and vary considerably in how "easy on democrats" they are.

                    by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:19:28 PM PDT

          •  Well, Heath Shuler for one

            but again, Shuler's on this list as well, so your point holds.  But I think a better question to ask Markos is this:

            Of the Netroots-supported candidates who won in the South in 2006, what percentage of them are on this list?

            I think it's a very high percentage, which begs more questions about how worthy future Netroots-supported candidates in the South will be to the Progressive movement.

            by cfaller96 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:23:10 PM PDT

            •  The answer

              and something which I've said for a while and will say again, is that democrats in the south are useful for two reasons:

              1. vote on the party line most of the time

              2. they're not republicans.

              Because, frankly, that's the best one is probably going to get unless they run against an incompetent republican or there is a fluke election.

              There are some arguments that a economically progressive democrat might be able to win in the south, but you're almost certainly going to be one who is socially conservative and who is rather pro-military or otherwise "tough" in those matters, partly because they have to be.

              One just isn't going to get Feingold or Obama elected in the south on any sort of wide basis at all.  You may get a few, especially in districts that happen to be blue, but you're not going to get many.

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:28:22 PM PDT

              •  You don't live in the South, do you?

                I think your assumptions need to be revisited.  The South is going through some rapid change, and there are large and growing portions of the population that the Dem party shouldn't be writing off.  A progressive can win down here...or do you think John Edwards is a fluke?

                by cfaller96 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:37:20 PM PDT

                •  Why yes I do

                  over a year in Virginia, and 15 of the previous 17 years in Tennessee - in a horribly red district to boot.

                  No, John Edwards isn't a fluke, and he wasn't a progressive when he won his senate seat either, and he hasn't shown an ability to win in the south since supposedly turning into one.

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:41:03 PM PDT

                  •  Umm, 2004 primaries?

                    I'm not pumping Edwards too hard, but when you say he hasn't shown an ability to win in the south since supposedly turning into a progressive, I would point out that he will not have actually been in an election in 4 years.  That's a long time, especially in a rapidly growing and rapidly changing region like the South.

                    Ultimately, I think a Progressive won't be able to win in the South for another 2-4 years or so, but that's only if Progressives start entering races in the South.  That won't happen if people like you stay stuck in the "Blue Dogs are the best we can get in the South" attitude.  That attitude is actually pretty contradictory to the 50 State Strategy.

                    You really have no desire to pull the country to the left, do you?

                    by cfaller96 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:07:28 PM PDT

        •  Ford has been compared unfavorably to Webb

          by Kos, on the front page, many, many times in the last 8-10 months.

          Which is all well and good, but I think this is exactly why it's a mistake to make angels and demons out of our politicians, (i.e., Webb and Ford).

          by brownsox on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

•  Mikulski - Feh!

  She just dropped down in to the gutter as far as I'm concerned.  I used to really look up to her and her progressive record but this really undoes a lot of the good she's done for my state over the years.

  by Alegre on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:33:28 PM PDT

  •  Let Her Know How Ya Feel Marylanders!

    Here's a link to her web-form...

    http://mikulski.senate.gov/...

    Or you can call her up at [phone]

    by Alegre on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:36:40 PM PDT

    •  Barbara Mikulski

      isn't she the Campaign Chair for Clinton?

      Interesting.

      by bam bam on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:43:42 PM PDT

      •  You're Link Doesn't Take Us Anywhere

        Much like your point about Clinton.

        Who (by the way) voted against this BS of a bill.

        by Alegre on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:47:22 PM PDT

        •  Absolutely

          what possible influence could Clinton have had on her?

          None at all.

          Nada.

          Zip.

          by bam bam on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:50:47 PM PDT

        •  you're wrong about the link (it works fine)

          but right about Clinton.

          by jqb on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:50:58 PM PDT

          •  Really? Cos This is What I Get

            when I follow that link...

            The desired item does not exist in the system

            Sort of like the notion that Hillary could tell Mikulski how to vote on this measure - as was asserted above ;o)

            Clinton is her own woman as is Mikulski.  For another commenter to imply otherwise is just silly.

            by Alegre on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:01:06 PM PDT

            •  there's something wrong with your browser or the

              way you're using it. The page says

              Contact My Washington Office
              The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
              Suite 503
              Hart Senate Office Building
              Washington, D.C. 20510
              [phone]
              State Offices

              Help with a Federal Agency

              As your United States Senator from Maryland, I can help you in contacting and working with Federal Government agencies. If this is a constituent casework matter, please visit my Casework page for more information.

              Send Me a Message
              Thank you for visiting my website and sending me your message. It's great to hear from you. Helping Marylanders and understanding the thoughts and concerns of the American people is very important to me. Please fill out the mailform below completely and thoroughly, it will enable me to respond to your message more quickly.

              Unfortunately, I can only respond to Maryland residents. If you are not a resident of Maryland, please contact one of the Senators from your home state. I do appreciate having the benefit of your comments. However, due to the large volume of communications I receive by E-mail, phone, fax and letter, I simply don't have the resources to respond to everyone. Rest assured that I appreciate your comments -- the views of all Americans count with me.

              Fields marked with an * are