A list of Benedict Arnold Democrats - and the Democrats who will challenge them in '08

[derby378]

Moderators, pay careful attention - in no wise am I encouraging independent or third-party candidates to run against these Democratic incumbents. This is strictly Democrat vs. Democrat, and I say let the battle for the party begin!

Disclaimer: This is not a complete list. Updates and additions are welcome.

(AL-5) Robert "Bud" Cramer
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(AR-2) Victor Snyder
Voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(AR-4) Mike Ross
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(CO-3) John Salazar
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(FL-2) Allen Boyd
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(IL-3) Daniel Lipinski
Voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: MARK PERA

(IL-8) Melissa Bean
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: RANDI SCHEURER

(KY-6) Ben Chandler
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(LA-3) Charles Melancon
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(MN-7) Collin Peterson
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(MS-4) Gene Taylor
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(ND-0) Earl Pomeroy
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(SD-0) Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(TX-28) Henry Cuellar
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

(UT-2) Jim Matheson
Voted for Military Commissions Act (8/27/06), voted against McGovern Amendment (5/10/07), voted for Bush's demands for warrantless wiretapping (8/4/07)
Primary Challengers: NONE AT PRESENT

-----

As you can see from the list presented above, out of 15 turncoat Dems, only two of these turncoats have Democratic primary challengers. Clearly, our party still has a world of work to do - and not much time left to do it.

So, if your Congressperson is one of the individuals listed above, and there isn't anyone challenging that individual for that seat in Congress, it's a sign that you should find an honest Democrat who is willing to run against them - or possibly run against them yourself.

[burythehatchet]

1. I have recommende this post

because this is the only way the Democratic party can wrestled away. Either that or let it go and start a new party.

[derby378]

3. Thank you...

Evidently I have struck a chord. One response, but five recommendations! Maybe this will help prod some fence-sitters to get off their asses and start knocking on doors.

[bananarepublican]

105. Do you think some 'Democrats' could be part of a GOP sleeper cell strategy?

Something like this could explain why they have been so utterly piss-weak sine taking back the house. To give this thought a little more credence all I need to do is invoke the name... Joe Lieberman!

[rhett o rick]

116. I would say they are cowards against power. They know who has the power

and are afraid to buck them.

[ooglymoogly]

21. yes I agree with this post completely.

[nradisic]

2. Kick!

Time to find more real dems to run.

[TroubleMan]

4. K&R....We have to fix our party from within or we're in trouble.

nt.

[rhett o rick]

115. Agree totally, but how? Maybe identify and isolate those that are corporatist sympathizers

and censure them.

Bytheway it isn't helpful to put "nt" in the message. The purpose of nt or nm is to identify, in the subject, that there is nothing in the message so people don't open the message and find nothing.

[ananda]

5. Geez!

Hardly anyone is challenging these wimps.

Is that the power of incumbency at work.. or what?

[derby378]

7. Some might also claim it's the power of the DLC

Bean, Cuellar, and Sandlin (among others) are DLC members - and probably among the people that Hillary Clinton will listen to the most should she get the '08 nomination.

[VP505]

8. As long as

money talks and BS walks its gonna be that way. There are some aspects of public funded campaigns that I don't like but it does help to level the playing field that in theory should allow most anyone who wants to run to do so.

[ProudDad]

97. I'm curious

What aspect(s) of Public Financing do you not like???

[bryant69]

9. Well the party has limited resources

and while these guys are jerks, I suspect that they would rather spend their money on fighting republicans rather than fighting turncoat dems. I would imagine most local party organizations feel the same way (and in conservative districts might actually be proud of what these guys have done).

If they are going to be challenged in the primaries it has to from us, and people like us.

Bryant
Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kip Humphrey]

6. I vote for "NONE AT PRESENT" (reminds me of a one-party state)

[KingFlorez]

10. You're not going to get radical progressives in most of these seats

You can support a primary challenge, but rest assured that if a radical progressive wins any of these primaries, the Republican is going to have an easy time winning, so there really isn't going to be any changes.

[rucky]

12. are those the only choices?

[derby378]

13. If not a radical progressive, then how about an honest-to-goodness Democrat?

You know, a Democrat that won't vote against habeas corpus? A Democrat that won't vote to legalize torture or warrantless wiretaps? A Democrat that actually wants to bring our troops home from Iraq? If a conservative Democrat is willing to do all this, by all means, encourage that Dem to run, and we'll quibble over economic and agricultural issues when the time comes.

[dickbearton]

38. Quite right, K&R.

[Drunken Irishman]

45. Still wouldn't get that here.

Jim Matheson is seen as too liberal by many Utahns. If you think we can get anyone else elected to that seat, you're crazy. I'd love to see Matheson go down in the primary, but I can guarantee you that if this were to happen, Republicans would gain control of that seat. There are no ifs and or buts about it. No questioning, no debate, the seat was gerrymandered in a way that guarantees either Matheson, or a Republican. And the only way Matheson can hold onto that seat is if he's conservative. I'm guessing that isn't the only seat where it's exactly like this.

The only way Utah's 2nd seat would go to a more liberal Democrat is if it went back to the original zoning, which was essentially just Salt Lake County. There they elected some fine members of congress, but now that it takes up nearly half the entire state and cuts Salt Lake County into two, it just is not going to happen.

But when it comes down to it, if Matheson is the difference between a Republican controlled congress and a Democratic controlled congress, I'll go with him any day of the week. And yes, he's my congressman.

[Peace Patriot]

19. SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended.

I'd say that anything could happen in such an atmosphere. Opposition to the war has grown from 56%--a significant majority--when the war was started (Feb. '03), to 70%--a staggering majority--today. This kind of conventional thinking--that so-called "conservative" districts will inevitably elect Republicans, and that the Democrats must ape "conservatism" to win--is not useful. This is a very changed country, with a huge disagreement between the people and the political establishment on the war, and economic conditions that resemble 1929 more and more every day.

The Iraq War is a RADICAL FASCIST policy. It is NOT "conservative." So are domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus, a $10 trillion deficit, and the corporate takeover of our vote counting system with extremely insecure and insider hackable voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations. Radical, reckless, extremely dangerous, FASCIST policies.

Both Democrats and Republicans who have supported these FASCIST policies can and should be thrown out of office. It will take people outvoting the machines in cases where there is little or no verification of the vote (most states), but I think the American people are so pissed off that they can accomplish this feat across the board, in almost every district in the country.

Our goddamned bridges are falling down, due to six and half years of unbelievably irresponsible spending on an unnecessary and heinous war, with NO accountability for war profiteers, and multiple tax cuts for the rich and the corporate. SEVENTY PERCENT of our people understand this! Give them a good alternative--a smart, truth-telling, upstanding citizen who opposes these dreadfully wrong policies--and they will do their damnedest to the throw the bums out.

Congress has 3% approval rating on the war! Never forget it. THROW THE BUMS OUT!

[Drunken Irishman]

46. And these people aren't elected by the entire American population.

Just because 70% of Americans oppose the war does not mean people in these districts do. Utah still gives Bush an approval rating of just slightly over 50% and I believe those results are mirrored in Iraq War support. You're not going to see an anti-Iraq war candidate win Jim Matheson's seat, not unless he's a right-wing Republican, because that seat is so conservative that they might overlook his opposition since he would be a Repub. In fact many in that seat are Minutemen, that feel every person should be armed and want the United States to pull out of the UN. Oh and they hate the French, love their flags and hate gays.

The only reason this seat belongs to a Democrat is because Matheson was elected in liberal Salt Lake County prior to the Utah government gerrymandering the seat to encompass the very conservative eastern and south-eastern region of Utah. If he hadn't been an incumbent, and the son of a former popular governor (who was more liberal), the seat would be Republican right now.

[Truth2Tell]

83. want the United States to pull out of the UN... hate the French, love their flags and hate

But ironically, some of these same types have a beef with the wiretapping and the war. Sadly, it may still take a socially conservative Dem (anti-stem cell, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-21st century) to win. But we already have that, plus anti-Bill of Rights. I'd settle for a new devil who at least stood up against the rising fascist tide. A Ron Paul Democrat, so to speak. (flame away)

[Drunken Irishman]

94. Won't get that here.

I mean we keep reelecting Orrin fuckin' Hatch!

[rhett o rick]

117. How many are willing to get off their dead asses and do something, anything, even vote

Democratic?

[ooglymoogly]

31. not the way this county is moving

I suspect the opposite

[Solon]

87. We don't need a radical progressive, just someone who respects the rule of law and Constitution...

If that's too much to ask, then this country is lost.

[John Q. Citizen]

98. If you analyze the last election, progressives (not radicals) did very well, and

in districts where they didn't get the support that the blue dogs did, and in districts that aren't known as easy liberal districts.

I know you believe America is far more conservative than I do. I just don't know why you believe that. What is your data or evidence?

I base my assessment on the pew research polls of Americans on issues, I base my assessment from knocking on 21000 doors in 7 states over a 3 year period and discussing health care reform with Americans.

Will progressive win them all? I doubt that. But they will win a lot, particularly if they talk about the majoritarian issues that effect people. Wellstone proved that, as did Tester.

Do you know why the liberal caucus is the largest caucus in the house? Because America is far more liberal than you realize. Don't ask Americans if they are liberal, because I can guarantee you they won't say yes. But if you ask them if they believe every American should have access to health care, a majority, from Idaho, to Montana, to Minnesota, to WA. to Oregon will say yes. And they will say yes in small rural towns as well as in the cities.

As long as you believe that America is as conservative as Fox (or any MSM)says they are, then you won't get far.

[KingFlorez]

99. I don't believe this country is all that conservative either

I was only saying that in some of the majority Republicans districts held by Democrats, a blue dog Democrat is the only type of Democrat who can hold those seats.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. I don't doubt that. but I also believe that many of those districts (not all)

would support more liberal candidates.

Of course there are a ton of factors that go into a succesful race than the issues of the candidate. Every thing from looks, personality, and money, to who the opponent is, etc.

One of the problems is incumbancy is so difficult to overcome, no matter who is trying to do it. And both partys like it like that. So the good, the bad, and the ugly all get entrenched. And that holds back change, usually.

[rucky]

11. Pera's website is great.

It really separates him from Lipinski on key issues - in a postive way. The presidential candidates should take a few notes.

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. Do you post elsewhere?

This would make a good DailyKos diary. Also, the folks at Swing State Project might like to see it, if they haven't got their own version yet.

[derby378]

17. Y'know, that's a wonderful idea

I do post on Daily Kos every once in a while, even though DU is my home. Thanks! :hi:

[dkofos]

15. OK Howard It's up to you. Find us some true PATRIOTS to run against

these treasonous turncoats!!

[AzDar]

16. Kick...

:kick:

[Skidmore]

18. K&R

[Gman]

20. So for the way they voted on 3 issues,

6 months into this congress, regardless of how they've voted on anything else including minimum wage, SCHIPS , and a host of other good legislation, you would run someone against them. No, I don't think that based on these 3 issues "our party still has a world of work to do".

Wouldn't you agree this is an emotional, kneejerk OP? BTW, 5 times as many people die each year from lack of health care than soldiers who have died so far in Iraq. Did you ever think to find out what these representatives' position is on universal health care before you decided they needed to be ousted?

[KittyWampus]

26. Actually, OP'er would have a very liberal Dem run against them. Not just someone

and thus turn those seats red and taking away Conyers' chair.

[Gman]

33. Many similar posts are being done by people with no star, less than 1000 posts

(in a couple of cases less than 100 posts), and just signed up. (Derby378 is obviously a longtime DU'er in excellent standing who contributes meaningful and thoughtful OP's and responses so this certainly does not apply to him. However, I differ with him on this issue.) I highly suspect a lot of freeper types have recently signed up to generate this type emotion and to split us up. They're doing a very good job, I might add.

In any event, running a very liberal Dem against many of the above mentioned congresscritters is handing the seat to the GOP on a silver platter, like it or not. I'm not one to say "Well, it's the principle of the thing." because such principles don't get you universal health care, get sick kids SCHIPS, an increase in the minimum wage, higher taxes on oil companies, etc.

[Raksha]

74. Yes, this place has been crawling with trolls ever since last night.

Re Many similar posts are being done by people with no star, less than 1000 posts (in a couple of cases less than 100 posts), and just signed up.

It isn't just the newbies, but the longtime disrupters who manage to stay under the radar (at least enough to avoid getting tombstoned) are up to their old tricks again too. But they are pretty easy to spot, simply because the argument they use (the only one they have) is a big smelly red herring.

In any event, running a very liberal Dem against many of the above mentioned congresscritters is handing the seat to the GOP on a silver platter, like it or not.

PLEASE don't fall for this one! It's not that you're wrong, but that isn't issue we should be discussing. Of course running a progressive in a conservative district would be like handing the seat to the GOP...that goes without saying.

We all need to ask ourselves, how exactly do Blue Dog Democrats differ from Progressive Democrats? On what issues exactly? Even more to the point: WHY would a Blue Dog Democrat vote in favor of the FISA bill? Are Blue Dog Democrats the pro-treason faction of the party? Are they the anti-Constitution party? Or are their constituents the pro-treason faction? Would their constituents dump them for failing to kiss Bush's ass often enough?

Standing up for the Constitution and the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances seems to have become a Progressive issue by default. That in itself is a sad testament to the degeneration of politics in America, because that shouldn't even be a liberal vs. conservative issue, let alone a Blue Dog Democrat vs. Progressive Democrat issue.

I think everyone can understand the fact that there are definite personal and regional differences: a Progressive Dem who was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty could get elected in San Francisco but probably not in Georgia. I even know some Dems who are quite progressive on most issues but who are still advocates of the death penalty. I'll never agree with them and vice versa, but it's a legitimate ideological difference. It's the same thing with gun control.

But what is it about being a conservative Democrat from a red state that would cause a Blue Dog Democrat (one that wasn't bought and paid for) to empower Gonzo for five minutes, let alone for six months? After he's shown himself to be a liar and obstructor of justice in front of the whole country?

The reason it's so easy to spot the trolls on DU right now is because they keep raising the SAME straw man argument over and over again, i.e. Dennis Kuchinich could never get elected in Georgia, so therefore any organized effort to throw the bums out is an attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party and guarantee a Republican victory.

They never do explain why Blue Dog Democrats act consistently to empower tyranny and sabotage the Constitution.

[Forkboy]

78. Since last night?

Where have you been? They've been here all along. :)

[Raksha]

103. I know they've been here all along!

But the reaction to the FISA vote really rattled their cages, and they've been louder and more obnoxious than usual since last night. They seem to have quieted down for the moment...let's see how long THAT lasts!

[Mythsaje]

29. We'll never see universal healthcare if they keep bowing

down to the Republican minority.

[ooglymoogly]

32. but they are such important issues.

I would still like to see how they voted on other issues that effect We the People

[ima_sinnic]

40. "5 times as many people die from lack of health care"?

oh, you mean 5 AMERICANS. I guess Iraqis don't count. They are not human beings, after all. I suppose it also doesn't matter that in large part because of these "Democratic" TRAITORS that the Iraqi people's country is in ruins, children are injured, torn apart, orphaned, the entire country is in shock and reduced to rubble, with no electricity or runnning water.

No, all we should think about is our own selfish little health care concerns and not care at all that we are cold-bloodedly murdering people around the globe. Is that a Shillary avatar I see? Figures--those who want a warmonger for a president will downplay our role in genocide and suffering among people who "don't count." The DLC and those they shove down our throats, their candidates, like Shillary, are trojan horse lobbyist-friendly corporatists who couldn't care less about pain and suffering in the world.

[Gman]

43. Heh, heh, heh... there's some of us here that have more than one or two facets

to the way we view the world. It's unfortunate that you are only interested in one or two issues. You need to broaden your horizons and look at the plight of the people around you too. Iraq is one of a plethora of issues that need change.

This is one that always slays me: Would you explain to me how is it that in a primary system that allows everyone that calls theirself a Democrat to vote for who they think should be the nominee, that the boogie man DLC is shoving a candidate down anyone's throat? Could it be that Hillary actually has support in the grassroots? Could it be most Democrats (according to the polls) don't agree with you and support Hillary? Nah, can't be. Right? Wouldn't it then be true that a majority of grassroots Democratic voters (again, according to the polls) are DLC robots?

Ok, fine. A plurality.

[ima_sinnic]

55. YOU are the one fixated on health care above all else

--and I'm not going to go into the well-known machinations of the DLC in shoving candidates down people's throats. What they did to Howard Dean, and the way they forced Kerry on us, are only too well documented. Don't pretend that it is "voter preference" or a "natural outcome" of the primary process. If a "maority" of the people support the payola-driven corporate tool, then the majority are FOOLS--this is also a well-known fact.

[Gman]

72. Well known facts? Oh, really?

[derby378]

53. Repeat after me...very slowly...

They voted to legalize torture.

I'd say that's a damn site more important than universal health care, wouldn't you? What good is universal health care if they're just going to waterboard you and then electrocute you?

I appreciate that you understand that I want the Democratic Party to succeed in '08, but these "two or three issues" I referenced happen to be two or three of the biggest issues as far as DUers are concerned, and also among the issues most capable of pissing off Democrats. If you want universal health care, I think there's a way to get it without our party selling its soul.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

59. My opinion is that we have a dictatorship or the closest we've ever come to it....

That being the case, we should be impeaching, NOT GIVING THE DICTATOR WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR!

[progressoid]

84. Agreed.

[rhett o rick]

90. I strongly disagree with your assessment. The most important issues

before us are the horrible violations of the laws and the Constitution. I am sorry you used the minimum wage bill as an example of the goodness this Congress has accomplished. A few cents an hour for years to come that doesn't even meet what most states are already providing. And what is "a host of other good legislation"? Like what? What about reestablishing habeas corpus, repealing the MCA, closing down the concentration camps, and ending illegal spying. They haven't even mentioned these issues let alone dealing with them. But of course now they, those republican sympathizers, those traitors of democracy have condoned the law breaking of the President.

I don't care if they raised the minimum wage ten cents an hour they have betrayed the Democratic Party by giving their support to the President. I guess the question to you is why? Explain why they did this, please.

In breaking the FISA laws George W Bush was dropping his pants and mooning the American people. He could have gotten all the intelligence he needed within the law. But he wanted to flaunt his power, his disdain for the law. These so called democrats didn't use the opportunity to kick him squarely in the butt but instead bent down and kissed his butt.

I believe these traitors decided to vote with the President (fuhrer) because they know we already are in a dictatorship and they don't want to be on his bad side.

[Gman]

121. Your list is Iraq war/WOT related

I'm saying Iraq/WOT are not the only reasons we elected a Democratic congress. Maybe those issues I listed seem trivial, but I assure you that to millions of people they are not trivial.

[rhett o rick]

125. Your list only had two issues. But the point isn't that they aren't supporting Democratic issues

but that they supported this huge assault on the Constitution. If we don't stop this rush to fascism there won't be any minimum wage. These Democrats agreed to let Alberto Gonzales spy on anyone he wants without any, not any oversite. Alberto will use this unConstitutional power to spy on his enemies. And who do you think that is? Not terrorists, but Democrats. Kiss the 2008 elections goodbye.

[Gman]

126. Surely you jest

"Kiss the 2008 elections goodbye"? Why? Because the progressives are going to desert? I'm so scared.

[rhett o rick]

129. The Republcans stole the 2000 election and the 2004 election, so why is it so hard

to believe they will steal the 2008 election? Gonzales can spy on anyone the republicans wish without oversite.

[madrchsod]

22. bean`s district is one of he wealthiest in the chicago land area

whether or not these people will vote for a progressive democrat or the republicans will run a moderate candidate is yet to be seen. a moderate republican could take the seat back...

[greatauntoftriplets]

35. I know someone who lives in Bean's district ....

and -- because of his job -- is well versed in the political realities of that district. And he is a Democrat. He says that a conservative Democrat like Melissa Bean is the ONLY type of Democrat who could get elected up there. And, as you well know, she replaced that dinosaur right-winger Phil Crane.

[madrchsod]

52. thanks-- i thought that was the deal up there

i guess my memory is`t as bad as i thought....ya keeping cool over there? i don`t want to look at my electric bill that`s for sure

[greatauntoftriplets]

66. Ugh, it's like a steambath out there today.

I just paid my electric bill today.

:cry:

[derby378]

57. Y'know, there used to be a lot of people who said Lieberman could never be defeated

But then Ned Lamont came around and showed the nation that Lieberman was quite vulnerable in his home state. The only reason that Lamont isn't in the Senate is because Lieberman struck a deal with Karl Rove and the White House in order to throw Arthur Schlessinger under the bus so that Lieberman could get the Republican vote in Connecticut.

If Lieberman's vulnerability can be exploited, so can Melissa Bean's. Her district and Lieberman's home state are in similar financial health, so I think a primary challenge against Bean is not unthinkable.

[greatauntoftriplets]

65. Except that Lieberman won the election.

:shrug:

[derby378]

69. As I just said...

"The only reason that Lamont isn't in the Senate is because Lieberman struck a deal with Karl Rove and the White House in order to throw Arthur Schlessinger under the bus so that Lieberman could get the Republican vote in Connecticut."

Lieberman is a two-faced, faithless opportunist, and as our entire party has learned, he will say anything to anybody just to keep his Senate seat.

Next time he's up for re-election, he may not have such an easy go of it. CT Democrats will remember...

[ooglymoogly]

23. my sentiments exactly....nt k&nom

[KittyWampus]

24. yeah- Alabama, Mississipi and Utah are SUCH liberal bastions...

it's interesting to note that Illinois which is trending blue has primary challengers.

[dbonds]

44. Alabama does have liberals...

I'm one of them. Working to turn what I can blue. The repugs are pretty rabid though, and most don't even know what the politics of it are. The are repug because religion and racism. Red state and redneck both refer to the same color, hmmmm. But it isn't everyone, and more people are waking up every day. Even the hard core rednecks are not fans of bushco.

[madrchsod]

25. (IL-3) Daniel Lipinski

he will retire from that district. the chances of him losing in the general election is 0....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400630
GovTrack: Daniel Lipinski

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

37. You're correct, Lipinski will win the GE in a walkover. The Pukes

haven't bothered putting anyone up worth even considering voting for for eons in this district.

He literally inherited this Congressional seat from his father, the former congressman William O. (Bungalow Bill) Lipinski in 2004. Bungalow Bill ran unopposed in the Dem primary in March 2004 but "suddenly" in August, 2004 he decided to retire. So TPTB, aka Mikey Madigan and Little Richie, decided to let Danny Boy take his father's place. A lot of people within the IL-03 were very pissed off about this. Danny Boy won the GE easily. The guy the Pukes in Cook County ran against him in 2004 didn't even campaign...

In November 2005, an Asst. Cook County States Attorney, John Sullivan, decided to run against Danny Boy. By the end of December, 2005 another person, John T. Kelly, decided to throw his name into the mix. Kelly was nothing but a sham candidate. He claimed over and over again that he wasn't, but believe me he was. I know Mr. Kelly personally, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Kelly and John Sullivan split the vote against Lipinski and of course Danny Boy won the primary easily. In the GE 2006, the Pukes ran Ray Wardingly against him and of course, Danny Boy crushed him.

As of last week another name came into the mix as a primary challenger to Danny Boy in 2008. Gerald Bennett, the Mayor of Palos Hills, IL. Mr. Bennett hasn't "officially" announced his candidacy yet, but there was an article in one of last week's Daily Southtown editions that he is going to run.

AFAIC, this is the same scenario as 2006. Danny Boy is afraid to run against only one candidate in the Dem primary because he knows he'd lose. He's completely out of touch with the vast majority of the Democratic voters in the district.

He's pro-life, anti-stem cell (he's a type 1 diabetic and doesn't support stem cell research?? talk about voting against your own self-interest), has supported Bush and the Pukes repeatedly on the Iraq War and last night he voted for spying on American citizens. As well there are still plenty of people within the district that aren't happy with the way he got the seat in the first place.

He's a DINO pure and simple. His old man, Bungalow Bill, wasn't exactly a progressive Dem by any stretch of the imagination, but at least Bungalow Bill had the brains to vote against IWR in October, 2002 and the old man got the money from Washington to build the Orange Line on the CTA.

I refused to vote for Dan Lipinski in 2006 and if he wins the primary in 2008, I'll have to pass again. He's an asshat, IMHO, and I'm to old and jaded to hold my nose and vote for asshats just because they're Democrats.

ETA: Mr. Wonderful was out last night and he was informed by Mr. Kelly himself that he's running in the primary against the incumbent Democratic Cook County Assessor, James Houlihan, in February. I laughed my ass off at that. Kelly doesn't even have a college degree and he wants to be the Assessor of Cook County??? Keep dreaming John, it ain't gonna happen.

BTW Mr. Kelly has never filed his final FEC reports from his campaign against Lipinski in 2006. However, last summer he did manage to build himself, his wife and his six kids a massive McMansion here in Oak Lawn.

[madrchsod]

51. i`m not sure if people here at du understand the

level of corruption in the state of illinois. how about the democratic outfit that runs the state still trying to pass a budget and blago sitting on the utility bill...why do we vote for these guys? are the republicans any worse!

[derby378]

60. Perhaps we just don't care...

The system is only as corrupt as Illinois Democrats are willing to let it be. Maybe they need a cadre of "Untouchables" like the ones that helped bring down Al Capone?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

73. I cannot bring myself to vote for any Republican.

The Illinois Republicans are just as corrupt as some of the Democrats. Big Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and most especially that scumbag George Ryan are very good examples, IMO, of the Illinois GOP.

Last November I refused to vote for Lipinski and Todd Stroger. I did vote for Blago because compared to Judy Barr Topinka he looked like Einstein.

I was going to write-in Forrest Claypool for Cook County Board President but when I realized (being an election judge) that a write-in for him wouldn't be counted, I just skipped that race completely as I did with the race in IL-03.

Either of the Dem primary candidates running against Lipinski are facing a huge uphill battle. I saw it in action in April during our local elections here in Oak Lawn. The incumbent that was running for trustee/alderman in my area is a staffer for Danny Boy and he did face an opponent who had a chance, albeit small, of beating him.

The day of the election, most of the "greeters" outside the precinct where I worked were from the 23rd Ward in Chicago and they had their orders to make sure that "one of their own" hung onto his seat/aldermanship. It was very discouraging to say the least.

I'm not blaming the people that were doing Mr. H's dirty work, after all most of them were patronage people from either the City or Cook County and they realized that "getting out the vote" meant keeping their jobs or perhaps getting a job.

It's a sad state of afffairs in Cook County and throughout the state, but it'll take a miracle to clean it up. I think even Eliot Ness and the Untouchables would be discouraged by the scope of corruption.

[creeksneakers2]

27. By 2008

I think anti-war candidates will be able to win in GOP districts. I'd even bet on them.

[sojourner]

28. K & R!

[ooglymoogly]

30. sorry to see only 2 contenders to support and send money to.

we need more contenders!!!!!!and that is why this post is vital

[Hepburn]

34. 39th Rec on this thread....thank you for the info.

I am SICK and tired of DINOs! They are not Dems...they are Repuke Lite IMO.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. I have to ask about your use of "Benedict Arnold"

Benedict Arnold was a loyal patriot... for Britain. Where lie the loyalties of the Democrats who are actively betraying the Constitution they swore to protect and uphold?

[Drunken Irishman]

47. Probably their constituents.

At least that's how it is here. Most Utahns still support the Iraq war and are very, very conservative.

[zonmoy]

118. Simple way to find out.

look at who contributes to their campaigns. that is who they are loyal too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Most Of Those Congressmen Could Run As Indys Or GOPUERS and Win...

Like LBJ said I rather have them in "the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in..."

I would suggest a good exercise would be to see the percentage of Bush's vote in those districts... I'd be willing to wager he carried most of them and by a lot...

There's a inference there if you can discern it...

[angrycarpenter]

41. I live in Floridas' 2nd district

And I am so ashamed of Allen Boyd.

[onenote]

67. But are you surprised?

Your district gave chimpy 54% of its votes in 2004. Its a red district.

[il_lilac]

42. Thank you!

I just signed up to volunteer for the challenger to my Dino/traitor rep here in IL-03. I will do all I can to get him replaced.

[derby378]

61. Glad I could do my part to help

:patriot:

[NoPasaran]

48. Deja vu all over again

Deja vu all over again.

[LeftyCanuck]

49. Kick!

I'd recommend it, but I don't have enough posts yet.

[eridani]

50. We need to popularize the notion of "losing forward"

Any more progressive candidate that takes on any of these people is going to lose the primary. However, such a candidacy can be the start of a better organized progressive base. The object of the campaign should be to contact as many people as possible and engage them for further participation. The candidate may lose, but s/he will have put progressive issues out in front of more people and gained some allies.

[raven880]

54. Indiana's Dan Burton???

I didn't see his name on the list and he ALWAYS votes for anything the Bushies wish. Guess I'll have to go to Congress.org and see how he voted. He does seem prone to skipping out on votes frequently when he doesn't want to totally p*ss off his constituents.

[derby378]

63. I don't think he has a Democratic primary challenger, either

There were simply too many to list that do not yet have primary opponents, which is a damn shame.

[PhilipDC]

108. Burton

Dan Burton is a Republican.

[Chichiri]

56. North Dakotans fear change.

So not much chance that Pomeroy's going to be challenged, possibly not even by a Republican. North Dakotans like conservative Democrats in Congress for some reason.

As for Peterson, I'd consider challenging him myself if necessary, but alas, I just moved from MN-7 to MN-3. Jim Ramstad is my new congressman, a puker. :p But at least he's the most moderate puker in the MN delegation. My poor parents have to live with Michelle Bachmann! :(

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. I pray plenty of Democrats will run against these people!

[Divine Discontent]

62. well it's obvious those two should lose then

for capitulating on 2 or 3 of these issues. hopefully others will run against them and hammer them non stop - EVERY day about this, just keep hammering.... As Dodd said, he can't understand or explain WHY the Dems don't do like the Reps do and vote nearly unified...

[Geek_Girl]

64. Thanks for posting

in a few weeks I'll be donating money to those two primary candidates I hope others do the same.

[onenote]

68. I have no problem if someone wants to mount a primary challenge

but the chances of it succeeding (or, if it does succeed, of the Democrats holding the seat) are pretty close to zero.

These are largely red districts. For example, Cramer's district (AL 5) gave chimpy 60% of its vote in 2004. Anyone expecting that district to elect someone more progressive than Cramer is probably fooling themselves.

[Telly Savalas]

85. Nancy Boyda (KS-2) voted against it.

I can't find Bush's 2004 numbers in that district, but in 2004 she lost to ultraconservative Jim Ryun 57%-41%. It's a pretty damn red district, but Boyda feels comfortable going home to her consituents and explaining her vote.

Dennis Moore (KS-3) is a Blue Dog co-chair for policy, and he voted against it. Moreover, he's backing measures to impeach Gonzales.

If Democrats in red ares like these can cut through the bullshit on isolated issue like this, then why can't we expect Democrats in other red areas to do the same?

[hfojvt]

132. my district is not that red

It voted for Gore in 2000.

[Raksha]

70. Thank you for posting this list. I'm going to save it and print it out

and if any of these Benedict Arnold types who don't presently have a challenger acquire one in the future, I'll be sure to contribute to that person's campaign.

Throw the bums out!!!

[MasonJar]

71. After considering the phenomenon carefully, I have come to the

conclusion that some of our most relevant dems are being threatened. Conyers' backdown is hard to decipher any other way. I saw Bush's first Sec of the Treasury on Charlie Rose after he had written a tell all book and he explained to Rose that he was well-to-do and old so he had nothing to fear. However, he never was heard from again after that interview. I am confident that his grandchildren that he spoke so lovingly of were threatened the very next day. There seems to be no other explanation for Conyers; he was too on top of this whole situation. They ignored him and relegated him to the basement until he was chairman.

[Usrename]

75. This post should be pinned to the top of the front page.

If there is any hope of saving the party, this is it.

Right now, the struggle isn't about parties anymore. It's about empire and fascism.

We should make this struggle into the only party issue. It may be the only way to win.

[democrat2thecore]

76. Here's the complete roll-call

S 1927 YEA-AND-NAY 4-Aug-2007 10:20 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Protect America Act


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 41 181 9
Republican 186 2 14
Independent
TOTALS 227 183 23




---- YEAS 227 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)



---- NAYS 183 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth



---- NOT VOTING 23 ---

Becerra
Clarke
Clay
Coble
Crenshaw
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Goode
Hastert
Hayes
Hinojosa
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
LaHood
Lantos
Paul
Saxton
Skelton
Tancredo
Young (AK)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[democrat2thecore]

77. Dan Boren (D-OK) - Add him to the list!

Not surprised being David Boren's son, but still --- traitor!

[Forkboy]

79. Me like this post.

:thumbsup:

[Perry Logan]

80. Someone should warn the challengers how quickly Democrats turn on one another.

[Spiffarino]

81. Heath Effing Shuler, NC-11

Politically, you are dead to me. You became a Republican with that one vote against the Constitution you swore to uphold.

I now rise in strong opposition to your 2008 candidacy and will support any Dem who will run against you.

Note: NC-11 is looking for a real :dem:

[B Calm]

82. recommended and kicked

[jfern]

86. Ask the challengers about FISA

Make sure that they support the 4th amendment. It would be useless to replace one 4th amendment hating Democrat with another 4th amendment hating Democrat.

[redacted]

88. 41 House Dems Tremble Before the Mighty Bush

by Meteor Blades
Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:19:43 PM PDT

Of the 41 House Democrats who voted today to roll over on the eavesdropping amendment that the White House demanded be added to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 26 30 were Blue Dogs. The bill, Orwellianly named the Protect America Act, passed 227-183, with 181 Democrats and two Republicans opposed.

These are the Dems who ... failed us. Who failed our country.

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

MORE
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/01943/25391

[Krashkopf]

89. Contact the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

For GOD's sake, the "Rubber-Stamp" FISA court refused to go along with Bush's domestic surveillance programs. Do you realize how egregious those programs must be for the FISA court to refuse approve it!

And yet, 41 Democratic members of Congress were so afraid that George Bush and Karl Rove would say they were soft on terrorism, that they voted to allow Bush to spy on us with impunity.

Today, I sent an e-mail to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and told them that unless they target each and every one of the 41 spineless DINOs for defeat in the 2008 primaries, that they have seen the last check from me that I am EVER going to send them.

[AllyCat]

91. Welcome Krashkopf!

Great idea. I'm thinking of doing the same thing although I've been fed up for awhile and not giving money.

[rhett o rick]

92. It is impossible to replace these traitors. The state and national Democratic

machines will always back the incumbent. Even in the Lieberman case, where we came as close as you are going to in replacing and incumbent, most Democratic leaders supported the incumbent(Lieberman) even after he became an independent. Without the State and National Demo Party's help you will never replace these traitors.

[yurbud]

93. Lieberman was the first. The next will be successful, or the next. starting with House cleaning

might be better.

That's why Paul Hackett might have done well to stick with a House seat--develop the progressive power base in the House of Commons before trying to crash the House of Lords.

[Usrename]

95. You're right, cleaning House isn't the same thing.

Going after Lieberman was the flea raping the elephant.

No one else has unflinching support of the party leadership together with the ability to raise unlimited funds.

All that work Lamont did in exposing Lieberman, it just helps to makes these other DINOs that much more vulnerable.

[yurbud]

102. He did what Dem leaders fail to do: took a long shot stand on principle, knowing it would

lay the foundation for future efforts.

If he won, even better, but failing in the right direction is better than succeeding in the wrong.

[rhett o rick]

113. Throwing out incumbents is not so easy, see my post below # 112.

[Eric J in MN]

96. Thanks for posting this.

I donated to Melissa Bean when she ran for the first time.

Didn't turn out too well.

[Enrique]

101. this post is so much better than mindless ranting

Especially good to see that little Lipinski will be challenged in Chicago. I think he's vulnerable, despite the DCCC's inevitable support for him.

kick and recommend.

[Norquist Nemesis]

104. One thing to add if possible is the number of terms incumbents have

(I'm going to be away for about a week or so, or I'd take the time to list when these incumbents arrived in DC.)

In some ways, it's a Catch 22 with these incumbent districts though. I'd work night and day to get a real Democrat in who is going to BE a Democrat. But each and every incumbent race is going to be a tough slog. Example: Missy Bean gaining her nom/election was huge because of the demographics of her district. Had she come out as a true blue Democrat, she'd never have won the seat...and yet, her votes are not showing much of anyting but DINO. I have some (little, but some) ummm...call it a sympathetic reality toward her situation. BUT, the big defining thing IMO is a combination of how she casts her votes with a bigger weight in what she has done to sway others toward a Democratic position. To date, she has done neither.

[angryxyouth]

106. I think it is time to start a liberal blog party.

We can pick from the brightest on the various blogs, hold you tube debates and eventual run a candidate for every seat which will become open. Do it with out any financing at first until we have viable candidates. Then use personal donations only. We could start getting rid of these corporate politicions, and replace them with WE the People. Maybe we enter them in the Dem primaries. I don't know, I think someone smarter than we could get something going.

[CrispyQ]

107. Thank you for this excellent list!

I'll be in touch with my local dem party to see if they know of any challengers to Ken "I vote dem about 30% of the time" Salazar.

k&r

[Ian_rd]

109. This list needs to be a permanent resource on the front page (nt)

[disndat]

110. People still don't get it

Mark Crispin Miller said that we would have had a veto-proof Congress in '06 elections, if Repukes weren't up to their usual dirty tricks stealing a lot of the seats by DRE voting machines, caging voters, and all the many other crooked things they do to the electorate. The results of the '06 elections did not reflect how fed up the electorate was with Bush and Iraq war. The lesson here is that we have to follow the example of the Secretary of State in California who has just banned electronic voting machines that use secret software. I agree that we should also get after the 41 infamous Democrats and hold them up to public scrutiny and scorn. We must keep up the pressure.

[The Stranger]

111. I absolutely hate seeing some of the names on that list, BUT

they need to learn that they should never, but never, abandon their base.

[rhett o rick]

112. Lieberman / Lamont contest showed us how extremely hard it is to replace

an incumbent in our Party. State and local Party officials will fight you all the way. The Party doesn't want to give up an incumbent no matter who they are. They fear loosing the general to the Republicans. Even in the extremely rare case when you have a viable progressive with a lot of personal money like a Lamont plus tons of national grass roots support, even then the Party will fight you. Lamont did manage to gain the Party nomination but still lost the election to the incumbent Lieberman who was supported by many high ranking Democrats.

To replace corporatist incumbent Democrats is needed to save our Democracy and i will work hard to that end, but we need a strategy.

[The Stranger]

114. Good points all.

Maybe the party needs to do a better job ensuring that incumbents don't feel as if they can abandon the party base and begin to do whatever the fuck they want. Perhaps there is a strategy there somewhere.

[happygoluckytoyou]

119. TOUGH DECISION HERE>.......

Mostly I'm a Liberal's Liberal---- and I don't appreciate any of the candidates who does not vote what I believe is right.

ON THE OTHER HAND.... For the Democrats, not only the "liberals" to take charge DOES require compromise, DOES require a bigger "tent" which the REPUBLICANS are willing to pitch, and so on.

I AM NOT ABOUT TO VOTE OUT AN 80% REASONABLE DEMOCRAT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE/SHE DOES NOT VOTE MY WAY ON AN INDIVIDUAL ISSUE OR TWO

This would play directly into the REPUBLICAN GOP CHEAP LABOR PARTY prayers that we divide and implode.

IF YOU ARE SO PISSED AT A BLUE-DOG DEMOCRAT.... WHY NOT SEND YOUR MONEY AND MESSAGE BY KICKING A REAL REPUBLICAN OUT OF OFFICE.
TAKE ON THE WORST OF THE WORST FIRST, NOT THE ONES WHO ARE "ONLY" 80% ON YOUR SIDE.

i have said many times... and know it to be true... THE REPUBLICANS WIN FIRST THEN DIVIDE THE SPOILS
THE DEMOCRATS DIVIDE FIRST AND THEN GET NO SPOILS

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THINGS KICK OUT THE HEAVY HITTERS ON THE GOP SIDE... GET A PRESIDENT INTO OFFICE...
FORCE "THEIR" SIDE TO COME UP WITH THE 60% VETO OVERRIDES

------------and then the terrorists will lose!!!!

[rhett o rick]

124. I couldn't disagree with you more. The worst of the worst are not those that are your enemy,

but those that you think are on your side and then shoot you in the back.

This isn't just some issue that they voted different than I would have liked. It is waaaay more important. There is only one major issue before us, to return democracy. You say they are 80% on our side and I say they are 100% on the side of Bush. Their vote was a vote against democracy, against the Constitution, against everything a Democrat should stand for. I don't care if they passed a hundred min wage bills, this vote said they do not support freedom, they choose Bush the King instead. They not only voted to continue his law breaking spying, but they virtually said that his breaking the law was ok. Our only chance is to convince the American public that Bush is breaking laws and that the Democrats will not tolerate it. Oh yes, this issue as you call it gave Alberto Gonzales permission to spy on anyone as he see fit. I can not express how terrible I believe this vote was. The spying will give them the edge to steal the elections of 2008.

[bonito]

120. Like this?

http://tallahassee.craigslist.org/pol/390472615.html

[derby378]

135. Hey, that works, too

:hi:

[Forrest Greene]

122. If Voting Could Change The System

Voting would be illegal.

[19jet54]

123. Who voted you Democratic Whip?

In other words, who died and left you in charge?

The problem I have with your post is that you are defining who is/is not a Democrat? What's next Tom DeLay look-alike?

[derby378]

127. Before you judge me, take a good look at those three votes...

The first vote eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture, which was then further compounded by yet another signing statement from Herr Decider.

The second vote kept our troops in Iraq with no realistic hope of pulling any of them out until September at the very earliest.

The third vote basically said that Bush can eavesdrop on anyone without a warrant, which means your phone(s), e-mail, and browser are now at risk.

So yeah, I'm gonna speak up about this. It's a little thing called "initiative," and judging from the responses I've received on DU so far, a lot of my fellow DUers agree with me.

[19jet54]

128. I understand...

... and do not disagree with your frustrations - But I am a realist too. Not all democrats are one step from the green party, or gay, or anti-gun, anti-war or whatever; no offense but some democrats are actually moderate or conservative.

My understanding of the first & third votes are that they apply mostly to overseas intelligence and not to Americans, but with a short sunset clause until the political winds change. You are fully correct on the second, since congress can not over-ride a POTUS veto currently, but feel things will be different in September. If I am wrong, please inform me otherwise? I think this is political reality for this moment in time, But I would not call anyone "Benedict Arnold" for this - those are hugely insulting words. If their behavior/votes are still not in line with the Democratic majority this fall, perhaps I will fully support your cause.

The Tom DeLay comment was in regard to Whip Tactics, not you personally.

[Usrename]

130. I sort of agree with what you are saying, but I would rephrase it.

Not all democrats are one step from the green party, or gay, or anti-gun, anti-war or whatever; no offense but some democrats are actually moderate or conservative.

Not all democrats are one step from the green party, or gay, or anti-gun, anti-war or whatever; no offense but some democrats are actually pro-Bush and pro-fascism.

There's a good reason why I want to try and make this point. Six years ago Joe Lieberman was considered one of the most progressive and liberal gentlemen in the Senate. Nothing about him has changed. He's still pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun, etc. He's also a huge racist and a fascist. There are more in the party leadership that are like him.

"If their behavior/votes are still not in line with the Democratic majority this fall, perhaps I will fully support your cause."

I think a whole bunch of us gave them till now, the first session is over, to get their act together. They would have to make a pretty severe 180 degree correction to get on track. Right now they are supporting Bush's agenda and they really need to oppose it.

[19jet54]

133. Joe Lieberman

If you go to his website, read his & his wife's bio (who is a child of a Holocaust survivor), you will understand his position. It is a religious thing & survival of his people that motivates him, much like a American Tribe member having special interest too. While I disagree with his position, I have great respect for him at the same time for his loyalty to a cause greater than himself. I have the same respect for you, and for the same reasons. I would never call either of you traitors simply because I disagree with your position. - Life is about respect, with out it we would have nothing but war & anarchy continuously, which I feel is Bush's major problem - King George! Always attack their position & the things they do, never the individual?

[derby378]

134. It's cool

Although the Military Commissions Act and the FISA revamps are marketed as affecting mainly non-Americans, I cannot trust the Bush administration to keep it that way, especially with the unfortunate case of Jose Padilla.

And yes, you're right - I am frustrated. I don't expect all Democrats to march in lockstep all the time, but a little solidarity on Capitol Hill once in a while would be very welcome.

[calimary]

131. Damn. I gave money to Stephanie Herseth, helped her get in, in a

special election - and she had to run again in the regular election just months later. Last time I contribute to her. I said it again today: I'm not giving ANY money. NONE. If they cave to bush, if they keep giving him what he wants, if they help him shred the Constitution, if they don't stand up to him ON ANYTHING, then fuck it.

I told a California Democratic Party volunteer on the phone the other night (before the FISA vote): "my attitude comes down to this - no IMPEACHMENT? No MONEY. Period." And I'm sticking with it. I'll be contributing only to Dems who back IMPEACHMENT.