There are a lot of bullshitters that hang out here.

[Renew Deal]

First, there are more bullshitters on the right. I just want to point something out. Someone somewhere called Hillary and Schumer republican lite and said that it wouldn't matter if republican won their seat.

These two have a 95% rating from the ADA and a 11% and 6% rating from the ACU. There would be a major difference if the pukes had those seats.

Some people here need to get a grip. Hillary spoke about making those reforms on the Senate floor. I have met Schumer and I know his voting record. He supports reform.

An important part of being an elected official is GETTING ELECTED! That's not a big deal for house members, but that's tougher in the senate. Schumer isn't going to be bounced out, but he has to have a good reason to vote for objection to Ohio votes. What's the good reason? Is it going to make a difference in the race? No. Is it going to help him as an elected official? Probably not. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure.

Here's a solution. If you aren't happy with these people, run for yourself. Otherwise stop whining when you are the one being unreasonable, not them.

[sportndandy]

1. Why do we have to sacrifice ideals to get elected?

I agree with everything you said, and yet it leaves me hollow.

I think a lot of people here are frustrated that the winning the popularity contest is more important then fighting for ideals.

[Renew Deal]

2. You don't necessarily have to.

It depends on what you support. Voting for objection of those electoral votes is a very bold thing to do. Are there 118,000 +1 bad votes in that race. I haven't seen proof that there is.

Chris Dodd said that he already supports a constitutional amendment, but he didn't vote for objection. Is every single senator a republican? I think not.

[wtmusic]

5. One day...

a candidate will come along who has the ability to popularize ideals, instead of changing his ideals to be popular.

If you're a candidate and you don't have that ability -- by all means, sacrifice your ideals to get elected.

[mattclearing]

12. Excellent thought here. That is the most succinct statement of the...

Democratic Party's current problem.

[Warpy]

7. The problem is that the DLC led Democrats aint that popular

and haven't been winning that many contests.

Sure, they have their place in the conservative areas of the south and midwest. However, the party as a whole has simply abaindoned the working class and much of the middle class in its quest for corporate cash and the votes of a few yuppies. You can't ignore your base and expect to win, something they should be learning from the GOP's attention to their cadre of religious wack jobs.

Forcing the entire party to the right while abandoning working people by taking bread basket economics off the table and promising nothing beyond the business as usual that has been killing us is a losing strategy, as the past several elections should demonstrate even to the more conservative among us.

Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.

[Renew Deal]

15. I'm not sure what you mean by not winning that many contests.

There are lots of DLC'ers elected. Then again, they probably get elected first and join the DLC later. A major problem with the party is that there are too many groups with too many conflicting interests. There isn't one message across the board. I don't think we need to be mindless clones like the pukes, but we must stand for something.

[InvisibleBallots]

3. yes, some people need to get a grip

Just because they are Democrats and Democratic partisans doesn't necessarily mean they are on my side. Voting in the House and Senate involves all sorts of background deals, vote trades, and the like. Clinton votes the way she is supposed to, as a Democrat from New York, but when the really big issues come along - the war, the election - where is she?

Clinton has star power and one of the safest seats in the Senate - where is she? She can get on TV whenever she wants - where is she? Sounds to me like she's "triangulating" to set herself up as a "moderate centrist" to run for President.

Who needs her? We can get any Democrat to vote according to ADA scorecards, but with Clinton and all of her celebrity, she can't even be a leader?

[Renew Deal]

16. I'm not sure why you think she has a safe seat.

She would have trouble if she was challenged by the right person. She is a hard sell. It's tough to convince people that she is one thing or another. People already have an opinion of her.

She can get on TV and do what? Say the election was stolen? She won't say that. There isn't enough hard proof.

Who needs her? We do. If that seat goes to Guiliani, Pataki or some other RW nut, it's worse.

[InvisibleBallots]

19. she voted for the war, for the PATRIOT Act, ignored the voting machines

A right wing nut like Pataki or Bloomberg would be worse - by a little bit at least. This is New York - if Clinton with all of her star power isn't safe here, then she sure as hell has no business trying to run for President. She should just stay in her seat I guess, and maybe try voting against PNAC for once.

[Renew Deal]

24. She is not safe

because of who she is, not where she is. I also don't think she should run for President.

[InvisibleBallots]

25. in that case, why did she vote for the war, the PATRIOT Act,

and everything else? She's not safe for "who she is" - so, then, "voting safe" isn't going to help - why not vote against the war?

Unless, that is, Clinton is not on our side.

[KlatooBNikto]

4. This is an incredibly pathetic argument.First ,a man like Schumer needs to

explain why he is voting for a scumbag like Alberto Gonzalez who goes against every principle our party stands for.That man supports torture of prisoners and was seeking a way out of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners, a treaty we have ratified. That man calls these conventions "quaint".What would be the reason Schumer would approve of torture himslef? And why is Hillary Clinton being given a free pass on this the most important issue of our time. To claim that these two have a 95% ADA rating is a ludicrous demonstration of how pathetic we have become as a party.

These two must be asked to ask why they voted for the Iraq War Resolution and why they now support the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez. Thay have no business calling themselves Democrats if they subscribe to the idea that torture of prisoners is an acceptable form of behavior for civilized nations.

[Renew Deal]

17. I also don't think Gonzales belongs there

That said, I don't think you/we would be happy with any Bush pick for anything.

Here is what Schumer said:
<snip>
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, said in an interview that despite reservations about Mr. Gonzales, he is likely to be confirmed and with broad Democratic support.

Mr. Schumer said the threshold for winning confirmation to a president's cabinet was far lower than for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, which have produced intense battles.

"Generally, for an executive branch position the president gets the benefit of the doubt," he said. "The general feeling on the committee is that he has probably met that lowered threshold."
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/politics/03gonzales.h...

Why is there "broad Democratic support?" I have no idea. I don't agree with this. I can't find anything from Hillary so I don't know which way she's voting. Are me and you the only real Democrats left? I don't think so.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KlatooBNikto]

26. This is getting ridiculous. We had, first of all,no reason to invade Iraq.

We have killed an estimated 100,000 innocent civilians. We are not fighting a nation state but a rag tag army.Long before we were in Iraq we were torturing prisoners at Gitmo brought in from Afghanistan,Pakistan and other countries.

[ret5hd]

27. hahahahahaha....100,000 dead equals "playing around"

[Child_Of_Isis]

6. If they keep okaying stolen elections,

they'll eventually lose their seats no matter how we vote. They think it can't happen to them. But it can, and it will. Eventually. Hillary voted for the non person's certification and look where it got her...a leak in yesterday's news.

[Renew Deal]

18. They didn't OK a stolen election.

I still am waiting to see proof that the election was completly stolen. They made their points and the pukes are calling them "liberal lunatics." That's without voting for it. I don't give a shit what the pukes have to say. At least they stood up. And I don't think the leak had anything to do with certification.

[stray cat]

8. I agree

It certainly is too bad we live in a democracy where our leaders have to be able to appeal to a broad enough range of people to get elected. What ever happened to good old fashion dictators who didn't have to appeal to public opinion?

[hfojvt]

9. This may sound like BS

but I have already run against Hillary. I did not run very well or very hard, but I did run. Did you know it takes about 17,000 signatures in 70% of New York's counties to get on the primary ballot? Clearly running for the US Senate is only an option for a) state senators or US representatives, b) super-rich people, or c) celebrities.
The fact that it is nearly impossible for me to run for the Senate, much less win a seat does not mean that I have no right to complain about my Senators voting record, speeches, or unwillingness to take a stand.
Also, BS is not the same thing as hyperbole or hysterics.
Finally, Hillary is a probably a decent Senator, certainly way better than the two I have here in Kansas. My objection to her candidacy is that a) she was hand-picked by party elite because she is a celebrity with connections, and b) she is less of a New Yorker than I am (at least my mom was born there).

[Renew Deal]

20. Great post

I live in NY so I generally know the signature rules. She may have been hand picked for the Senate seat. I would not initially support her in a run for President.

[rman]

10. besides, repub-light is not equal to repub

the difference is in one being "light" and the other not.

so it would make a difference whether or not a repub would win a repub-light's seat.

[Renew Deal]

21. I'm not sure what you mean.

Schumer is pretty safe. Hillary is not.

[TwilightZone]

11. It's not always BS for BS's sake.

A lot of it is knee-jerk reaction to the latest perceived affront to one's personal beliefs. It seems as though many people are much too willing and eager to dump on *anyone* who doesn't meet their standards 100%.

That being said, don't underestimate the possibility of trolls.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Life is compromise

You are absolutely correct.

That's why fundamentalism and other idiotic simplistic sureties are so tempting: life is one great big grey area. More importantly, the difficult issues of the day are difficult specifically because there're no simple answers to them.

You can't get elected to anything in this country if you don't profess a belief in god. I'll bet there are a few out there now who are serving, and they either fluffed the question or are deceiving us. To many, they would be called cowards, but to me, an ardent agnostic of a pretty anti-religious stripe, they're doing the right thing: they're keeping in the hand. The rest of us can't even get dealt in.

Knowing when to fight and when not to is all very easy to say from the sidelines, but in the arena of full-contact politics, it's a hell of a lot different.

Of course, once one compromises one's ideals, it may be hard to know where to stop or where to hold the line. That, too, is hard to say from a distance, but obviously a huge problem.

Scrappy perfectionists aren't just annoying, they're virtually useless. Dismissing those major Democrats who're walking a tightrope in these incredibly dangerous times is a big temptation and fair response to our frustration, but if it's done willy-nilly, we can't focus ourselves on the ones who really ARE sell-outs.

Dick Durbin is damn near a saint, and if he gets slagged by many of us, it takes away much credibility when we need to rightfully hammer Joe Biden. Biden's got his moments (where he ripped Ashcroft to shreds with bared teeth garners more respect from me than he's ever had) but he rolls over too often, and his core beliefs are too wishy-washy and "centrist" at best.

Leahy and Durbin were gems in working over Abu Gonzales. (I don't know which DUer came up with that term, but thanks!) When asked whether he thought the president had the right to disobey a law that he thought unconstitutional or unseemly, he twisted and dodged. There's a simple answer to that: "No, never".

The right is going to crush and trample all dissent now, and that leads to two tactics: fighting everything, or REALLY fighting certain things. The former can be painted as shrillness and get the country totally against the whining lefties, and the latter may give up too much ground and still not win on the critical stands. Then again, the former can just weary the bastards and draw lots of media attention to just what monarchic thugs they are, and the latter can allow us to be seen as reasonable, while drawing huge attention to those critical battles. Who's to say? Fuck, I'd like to see them have to fight for each greedy inch, but I'm leaning a bit to the latter. Of course, I'm just a wilting lily like the other traitors for saying such a thing, but so be it.

[showpan]

14. More bullshit

This election has proven nothing, we know there is no difference between the Dems and the Repukes, thay all work for the same corperate backers that have been running our country into the ground. Some may throw us a bone once in a while to appease while they all dance around the money toes. Ratings, like polls do nothing but confirm more bullshit.

[Renew Deal]

23. How do you figure there is no difference between them?

I'll even make it easy for you. Are there any differences between Schumer and Santorum or Brownback? If you say there aren't any differences then you are dishonest or nuts.