DU's anti-DLC activists have some explaining to do:

[brentspeak]

Voting "No" on the Artic drilling Defense bill:

Lieberman, Feinstein, Bayh, Nelson(Fla), Clinton, Biden, Schumer -- all "evil" DLCers

(Dems) Voting "Yes": Akaka, Nelson(Neb), Inouye, and Landrieu

Repubs Voting "No": Chafee, DeWine, and Frist (believe it or not)

No excuse for the Dems voting "Yes" -- but why did the more notable DLCers vote "No"? Maybe one of the DUers who spam these boards with their "let's get rid of 'such-and-such'!" threads can explain that.

Of course, if we followed the RNC operatives' -- er, I'm sorry, the anti-DLC Democrats' -- way, all the Dems who voted "No" for the bill would be replaced with Republicans. Most of whom would have ensured the bill would pass.

[Hardrada]

1. Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do!

Yikes!

[mike_c]

2. even a broken clock is right twice a day....

Even republican lite dinos get it right occasionally, too. :shrug:

[MrModerate]

3. Some DUers may hate the DLC . . .

I just despair. I think they're tepid, and craven, and will cost us big-time in 2006 and 2008. Something about being neither hot not cold, and so being spat out (can't remember what Book that might come from).

[xchrom]

6. lol -- good one!

[pocket]

4. Frist voted no

as a procedural tactic, so he can bring it up again.

[brentspeak]

That makes sense

Because it almost seemed like Hell had frozen over, and Frist was turning a page.

[JAbuchan08]

5. Is it too much to ask for a senator that votes against everything

that the W.P.E and his maladministration does?

[Warpy]

7. Lightswitch mentality

That's the kind that sees things in black and white, on or off, all one thing or all the other.

That some DLC members are on the right side of many issues has been stated many times on this board by the most vitriolic anti-DLC people here.

However, the DLC's leadership and misplaced priorities along with their complete abandonment of the traditional labor base of the party have lost us all three branches of government. That can't be disputed. It is a fact.

The only explaining that needs to be done is why a lightswitch mentality always demands explanations of the things he finally discovers that reside in a grey area. They never seem to get that.

Life aint that simple, folks, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Perhaps the DLC defenders need to step back a bit and look at the bigger picture. It's not a pretty one, no matter how much you yearn for it to be.

[AZBlue]

31. If it can't be disputed and it's a fact, can you give specific examples?

I posted a thread about a week or so ago about the DLC, simply asking for more info on it. I'm not new to the Dem Party by any means, but I was surprised to see the DLC-hate at such a high volume on this site and wanted to find out why and, more importantly for myself, more about the DLC. I got some great info from it and I'm still looking at it. So, this post is neither a defense of them or a criticism - I'm honestly just asking for a little more info. I go by facts and for me to figure out for myself what I think about the DLC, either way, I can't just go by opinions and feelings of others. Guess that's partly what makes me a liberal, LOL, I won't just take anyone's word for it. In particular, I'm intrigued by your comment, "the DLC's leadership and misplaced priorities along with their complete abandonment of the traditional labor base of the party have lost us all three branches of government." Thanks!

[Warpy]

41. Try their website

Their programs are all listed. I've gone through them step by step ad nauseum, so I won't do it here. Careful reading will show you that they all benefit the upper middle class and the yuppies, but will do nothing for those of us out here struggling to make it in workaday land on starvation wages. They're great for middle and upper management. They suck for most of us.

http://www.dlc.org

They even use "progressive" on their webpage now. They're not fooling anyone.

As for the fact that they've cost us all 3 branches of government, just check it out. We are out of power. They have run the last campaigns. They ran such spiritless, lackluster, and unappealing races that the vote was close enough to steal with 51% of the electorate staying home. You do the math.

[pinto]

45. Just a conversational point. Who are the yuppies?

[AZBlue]

69. I have read the website and I don't see what you do.

And just because we're out of power doesn't automatically mean it's their fault - could just as easily been the poor organization and management on the local and state levels or the stolen elections or the stars' alignment. That's no argument - it's completely baseless and devoid of facts.

Next time someone asks you to help out with some specific info and you don't feel like it because you've done it "ad nauseum" and can't be bothered, just don't bother to respond at all.

Thanks for nothing.

[wyldwolf]

56. Actually it has been disputed and proven false

However, the DLC's leadership and misplaced priorities along with their complete abandonment of the traditional labor base of the party have lost us all three branches of government. That can't be disputed. It is a fact.

Complete fabrication.

On edit: Not only is it a complete fabrication, it has been shown to be so many times on DU.

[mikehiggins]

8. Oh golly gee whillikers! they did something right. Wowser!

Give me a break. So the DLC folks voted the right way. So did Frist.

Wanna invite him to the picnic?

[HereSince1628]

9. Shouldn't this be posted in the anti-DLC forum?

[brentspeak]

12. This is the first I heard about that forum

I didn't know.

[tx_dem41]

10. It's obviously a devious DLC trick.

Those Rethug bastards.

:evilgrin:

oh...and :sarcasm:

[radio4progressives]

11. Don't Dismiss the HARD WORK and ACTIVISM

which has been ON GOING on these Democrats, vis a vis massive emailing, faxing, phone calling, - that along with furious blogging and flury Op Eds, pieces plus grassroots groups lobbying, all since November 3rd.


"it's hard work! but we're making a lot of progress".

[brentspeak]

14. I'm all for pushing the DINOS with calls and emails

to vote correctly on issues. I think that's a great idea.

What I'm against are the people pushing for a lot of them to be undermined in reelection against Republicans. Unless an extreme DINO can be replaced with a good Democrat who stands a solid chance of beating their Republican opponent, it's basically political suicide for the American people to have, say, Lieberman replaced by a Republican.

[stillcool]

13. So you found one?...

One issue that those who represent us voted in favor of our future, and therefore all other votes, where they show total disregard for their constituents ...is excused? Sounds like * logic. If you listen to too much spin you lose the ability to think.

[Meldread]

15. I guess Frist is a Democrat now.

...at least by the standards listed. When I look at Candidates I prefer to look at where they stand on the majority of the issues, and my most important issues. The DLC and those who support it have continuously found themselves on the opposite side of the road from me, so yes naturally I oppose them.

I fail to see how this vote changes anything, unless of course you are also implying that Frist is suddenly a liberal or even a moderate. I think a better comparison, however, is that Clinton and Lieberman and other DLCer's have more in common with Frist than they do with the core of the Democratic Party.

[brentspeak]

18. How many times has Clinton and Lieberman

been on the opposite side of the fence from you? Support for the Iraq War? As if Bush wouldn't have launched the invasion if Clinton and Lieberman had voted "no" on the war resolution.

So that's one issue - the Iraq War. But what else? How have they "continually" voted against your beliefs?

[radio4progressives]

23. NAFTA, GATT, FCC , WTO, Labor, Corporate Welfare, Carnivore, Eschelon

just a few things like that off the top of my head.... :shrug:

[w13rd0]

16. What are you smoking?

Few of those that voice disdain for the DLC say that they are 100% 24-7 evil GOP in Democrats clothing, just that more often than they should, they vote against the interests of the Democratic base and the Democratic platform.

I thought only the GOP used this kind of hyperbole in their arguments? Oh yeah, I forgot, so does the DLC.

[brentspeak]

19. "Few?"

Not on these boards, Charlie. Just the other day, someone suggested that it would be OK if all Democrats in California who weren't to her hard-left liking be replaced with Republicans. Her thinking? "Oh, the Repubs in California will eventually be voted out by the people of California, and a new era in liberal Democratic politicians would be ushered in". (or words to that effect)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

17. If these are the bad guys, then I don't know.

Most of them have a very good voting record, over a career of many votes in most cases.

Lieberman, Feinstein, Bayh, Nelson(Fla), Clinton, Biden, Schumer

Not even a smidgeon like a stopped clock being accurate twice a day.

That sounds like repuke logic, non-logic and smears.

[madfloridian]

20. Could they be realizing the danger our country is in?

Could they be responding to the demands a wee bit? Could they be realizing that the votes of many of them got us to a real crisis in this country?

Point me to a "DLC hater", would you please?

That is such a childish term to use. There are no DLC haters here, there are a lot of good Americans who finally realized that one part of our party was almost Republican...

So we woke up and started talking about it.

Please quit using terms like "haters."

In fact I may post something later, not in hate, but in pointing out they are trying to shut us up from criticizing Bush on Iraq and the eavesdropping.

[SaveElmer]

21. Because most DLC'ers are mainstream Democrats...

Who normally vote with the rest of their caucus...it is only on DU where DLC=Republican!

[brentspeak]

22. Thanks

[radio4progressives]

26. Not!

using the term "mainstream" does not give credibility to your argument as apparently you think. ;)

[madfloridian]

27. No, not mainstream. Some are.

I hope you note that when I present their own words...the words of the DLC...that I am making my points.

The DLC has taken over the party, and it is only a think-tank. They fundraise supposedly through Simon Rosenberg's NDN, the DLC PAC.

They are mostly interested in keeping business happy. They are urging us to hush on Iraq, because business folks like the war profits.

It is not all of them, but their are too many who do not care about the people's interest.

[SaveElmer]

66. Who do you think the DLC are...who is the power behind them...

Who is the person or persons pulling these strings? Making legislators bend to their will

[chefgirl]

24. I would suggest you rethink who you call an RNC operative

Like almost every other reply in this thread, my first response was, "Well so what? Even the evil DLC sometimes gets it right."

I did take issue, however, with this particular part of the original post:

Of course, if we followed the RNC operatives' -- er, I'm sorry, the anti-DLC Democrats'

I think the DLC is the absolute WORST thing thats happened to the Democratic Party in years, but I am NO RNC operative. Just making sure you're crystal clear on that point.

-chef-

[brentspeak]

34. I'm referring to

the people here who mindlessly advocate that non-progressive Democrats not be given any support in reelection. What good does that do? The only alternative I suggest is using primaries to pick strong Democrats who also have a good chance at beating their Republican opponents. Anything other than that, though, is just being a "useful idiot" for the Republican party.

I'm not a fan of the DLC, but I'm not a fan of enabling the Republicans even further by helping more of them get elected.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. They are all DINOS

There are DLC DINOS and there are non DLC DINOS but this doesn't change the fact that the DLC is a cancer on our party, that they constantly use their connections in the Corporate media to bash liberals and that they put out a political hit on Dean's candidacy in the weeks leading to IOWA.

DLC: Fellating Corporatists since 1985!

On edit: Typo...There to they

[brentspeak]

29. I'm not a big fan of the DLC myself

They've already shown that they don't know how to win a presidential race, and I wouldn't trust them to run any more campaigns.

My problem is with the people who prefer the "scorched-earth" policy of getting rid of DINOS mindlessly, thereby ensuring even more Republican domination.

As for Dean and Iowa: I heard some things about that, but Dean did have tons more money and volunteers for that caucus than the other candidates. I'm not sure how much influence the DLC had in that case.

[wyldwolf]

32. just out of curiosity

If the DLC already shown that they don't know how to win a presidential race, who DOES know how?

(Reminder: Clinton won twice, Gore once, Kerry possibly)

Seems they've "won" 4 out of the 5 races since they've been in existence.

[brentspeak]

36. You're correct to a degree

They did help Clinton get elected, and probably Gore. But they screwed up with Kerry, and have essentially given up on most of the Red states. The DLC strategy is now just to hope that the traditionally Blue states continue to vote Democrat in presidential elections. That's not going to cut it anymore.

As for who does know -- there are people within DNC who should work with the best of the DLC, with the people within DLC who are clueless being left out of the picture.

[wyldwolf]

48. More than a degree

But thats beside the point.

How can you say the DLC has given up on red states?

The DLC has made tremendous inroads into red states.

[brentspeak]

51. To be more specific

I mean, in terms of presidential campaigning. For example, DLC advisors suggested to Gore that he needn't bother campaigning in Tennessee and Arkansas -- he, and they, took those states for granted.

And what happened?

Further, what kind of Democratic party infrastructure exists in states like the Carolinas, both formerly strongly Democratic? Like almost none. It's now up to the DNC to try to build something back up in Red states which have been ignored for years.

[wyldwolf]

53. I don't recall "DLC advisors" suggesting that of Gore

However, Gore didn't campaign on Clinton's economic record, despite suggestions to do so.

Further, what kind of Democratic party infrastructure exists in states like the Carolinas, both formerly strongly Democratic? Like almost none. It's now up to the DNC to try to build something back up in Red states which have been ignored for years.

What does this have to do with the DLC?

The south has been trending GOP since 1968.

[brentspeak]

54. Well did advise Gore on that

And you're saying that because the South has been leaning GOP since 1968 -- the lack of effort by the DLC in that region can be excused?

Red state DUers have told me countless time that there's no real Democratic party infrastructure in their states. Where was the Democratic leadership?

[wyldwolf]

55. Prove it

Prove the DLC advised Gore to do what you contend they did.

Red state DUers have told me countless time that there's no real Democratic party infrastructure in their states. Where was the Democratic leadership?

And that has what to do with the DLC?

[brentspeak]

62. Who was the chairman of the DLC in 2000?

And that has what to do with the DLC?

Good grief.

[wyldwolf]

65. uhhh... what does that have to do with your "point."

How does the DLC chairman in 2000 at all prove your contention that Gore was advised by the DLC to bypass Arkansas and Tenn?

[madfloridian]

43. Stop spinning. The GOP owns the House, the Senate, the WH.

They almost own the judicial system.

[wyldwolf]

47. how's that spinning?

And how does that have anything to do with the DLC?

[iconoclastNYC]

35. You only need to get rid of 1 per campaign season.

Preferably in the primary. Liberman is this year's target.

Just because you have a (D) by your name doesn't mean you are good for the party.

[brentspeak]

37. Wrong, unless that (D) is Zell Miller

Other than that, all (D)'s are good for the party.

[iconoclastNYC]

38. Zell is retired.

And Liberman is horrible. He's the only Democrat who sticks up for Bush and then Bush gets to say look.....here is a sensible Democrat.

He needs to be forcibly retired.

[brentspeak]

39. Can you find another Conn. Democrat who would replace him

and not be defeated by his/her Republican opponent? If not, your view is exactly the thing that I'm railing against.

[iconoclastNYC]

40. Rail all you want.

There is an effort to unseat him in the primary and I support that effort. Keep on railing.

[brentspeak]

42. So you're admitting to all here that you're working against the Dem party?

[iconoclastNYC]

44. Liberman isn't the Democratic Party

He's a Democrat. A bad Democrat. He should be replaced in the primary. I'm going to donate to his challenger.

Liberman undermines our party and he needs to exit stage right.

[chaumont58]

28. This country can't afford to have two Republican Parties,

but, by god, it does! One admits it, the other just dreams about it.

[wyldwolf]

33. how so?

[mtnsnake]

30. Yes! For things that really matter, people like Hillary rise to the top

Hey, no surprise. She's a true blue Democrat despite all the rumors around here.

She's got one of the best track records when it comes to voting progressively. Out of all the 100 Senators, she ranks 9th on the list of progressives.

Funny how her idea to keep the flag from getting desecrated with some legislation she co-sponsored made daily headlines on this forum for two weeks (despite the fact that she was the most vocal Democrats to denounce any attemts at a flag burning AMENDMENT), yet something like this Arctic Drilling thing she voted against barely gets a couple of breaths. If you give me a choice between protecting the animals of the Arctic and protecting just about anything else, my choice goes to the animals who are fucked if we don't look out for them because no one else will. Long live the wolves, polar bears, migrating animals, wolverines, badgers, bears, and all the other good guys. Thank you, Hillary, Liebermann, et al.

[bonito]

46. Will marshall III, PNAC signer, founder of the DLC in 1985

[RazzleDazzle]

49. I'm so sorry to see people falling for this silly argument of yours

It's utterly ridiculous: you're using a single vote on a single bill to defend DLCers or try to invalidate ALL criticism of the DLC and most DLCers?

Well, gee. I guess that means that Bush isn't a pathological liar just because he told the truth when he admitted (finally) to the domestic spying on American citizens, eh? After all, your standard is: ONE INSTANCE IS ENOUGH. One incident a trend makes. Or some such.

Get real. Or wake up.

[wyldwolf]

50. well, certainly they should be defended on this vote, yes?

[brentspeak]

52. Looks like you haven't read my other posts here

you're using a single vote on a single bill to defend DLCers or try to invalidate ALL criticism of the DLC and most DLCers?

Not even close.

[Junkdrawer]

57. Let's see: On the day the Senate passed the most draconian budget...

in decades, it "defeated" a ridiculous attempt to tack ANWR onto a defense bill.

So Corporate America gets what it wants, but environmentalists are saved from an attack that only materialized at the last second.

Can you say "cover".

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. An attempt to be fair and balanced from a progressive viewpoint

I do not like the DLC. I feel they (particularly Al From and Will Marshall) have gone to great lengths to marginalize liberals, progressives and grassroots activist.

I vehemently disagree with their typical positions on the War in Iraq, matters of corporate power and trade issues and matters of military power and foreign policy; especially their embrace of neo-liberal economic theory. I think it totally legitimate to challenge them IN THE PRIMARIES with anti-war progressives.

However, they are still Democrats and their overall voting records reflect that.

Below is a compilation of Interest Group ratings comparing 5 different DLC Senators ratings with Mr. Moderate Republican - John McCain

this is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

"2004 Senator Baucus (Democrat - Montana) supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Peace Action 88 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
_________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2004

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 85 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 25 percent in 2004.2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 85 percent in 2003.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 73 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 50 percent in 2004. 2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 102 percent in 2003.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the National Education Association 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 50 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 75 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 89 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Baucus supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 29 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 4 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

[NoPasaran]

59. My understanding is that Biden is not an "evil" DLCer (your term)

While Landrieu is.

So, aside from generating a little flamewar on a cold winter night, does this have a point?

[ulysses]

60. hmm...

Of course, if we followed the RNC operatives' -- er, I'm sorry, the anti-DLC Democrats'

iirc, it's against DU rules to call other DUers Republicans. At least it used to be.

[rpannier]

61. One vote does not make make up for french kissing scrubbie

I agree that geeting husterical over a few votes is silly. But, it's the pattern of voting that I'm concerned about. Nelson and Lieberman have a pattern of bucking the party on key issues. This makes it impossible to formulate a coherant national political strategy.

[Cha]

63. I don't have to explain

anything to you for those dems doin' their Fuckin' JOBS!

[ddeclue]

64. Frist voted no for technical reasons so he could call it up for reconsider

Nelson voted no but also this had to do with more than just ANWR.

We don't want BushCo oil rigs springing up off the coast line of Tampa and destroying our beaches so he was voting not just for ANWR but also for Florida's natural resources. If ANWR got through Florida was next.

Lieberman, usually a Bush apologist, is strong on the environment but not much else kind I can say...

Not sure about the others...Biden wants to run for President so maybe this was his chance to get some resume fodder as in "I voted against ANWR" so he can look good to the environmentalist lobby during the primaries.

Sure made it confusing that the "Nelson" vote was split... I'm glad to see my "Nelson" did what I asked him to do.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Thank you for referring to one who has watched in frustration

for 25 years as DLC Dems happily enabled the Republicans' depradations, that is, thank you for referring to me, as a "Republican operative." :eyes:

[Overseas]

68. The Environment Polls Well -- no other explaining necessary. EOM

[The Magistrate]

70. Locking

Flame-bait.