Is it good or bad that Stupak is not running?

[kentuck]

Would it be even better if Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson were also not running?

Would it be better if these DINOs were all gone?

Would our Party be a more principled Party if these folks were all gone? Even if we were in the minority? Do we automatically have to give up our liberal principles in order to be a majority Party?

But, for many Democrats, that seems to be what we have done in the last 2 or 3 decades. We value being the majority Party moreso than we value doing what is best for the people that voted us into power.

Can we not win as a liberal Party? Must we compromise on everything?

[Pab Sungenis]

1. Bad for the party

good for the country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. What's Good For (Our) Party Is Always Good For The Country

~

[Tesha]

15. Nonsense. The Blue Dogs have been good for the party and lousy for the country. (NT)

[bluestateguy]

2. The liberal pro-choicers wanted him out, and now they have got their wish

I do hope they won;t have an egg on their face if the seat is taken by an anti-choice Republican who votes like a Republican on every other issue too.

[demosincebirth]

3. We may shoot ourselves in the foot again, like many times before.

[Tesha]

16. I don't give a damn if the seat *IS* taken by an anti-choice Republican.

Stupak was bad for women *AND* dreadful for the Democratic "brand".
And his grand-standing over his pet anti-women issue essentially cost
us a functional health care bill as well.

Go to Hell, Bart!

Tesha

[elocs]

4. "Can we not win as a liberal Party?" Across the nation, how do Liberal candidates generally fare?

Is the United States a country where most voters would vote for and embrace Liberal candidates? No, because I believe most Americans are in the middle. They may support liberal causes on some issues or conservative on others, but the majority are neither far left or far right.

"Must we compromise on everything?" I don't know about "everything", but the other side should be required to give up something as well. In the health care debate in the past year the Republicans were more than happy to demand and take every concession and compromise the Democrats gave them, but were unwilling to make any themselves. When they hold power they have the "my way or the highway" philosophy and when they are not in power they still hold fast to that view.

[WilliamPitt]

Bad.

Don't believe me?

Watch who replaces him.

Then check Stupak's overall voting record.

(facepalm)

[WeDidIt]

5. It's a terrible thing

Congress is a numbers game and anything that lowers the number of Democrats in the Congress increases the power of the Republicans in Congress.

Any way you look at it, it's bad for the Democratic Party and worse for the nation.

Liberals are a small minority in this country, like it o0r not. The only way to progress the liberal agenda is to form coalitions with the moderates, else the conservatives (who a a larger minority than liberals) will do so.

[Tesha]

17. "Liberals are a small minority"? Bullshit.

You wish it were true and the media pretends it's true, but that's
actually bullshit.

Tesha

[housewolf]

7. Well, it means the Repubs will undoubtedly pick up the seat

since it was basically a Repub district, and I've heard it said that he was the only Dem who could win it

I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whether you think that's a good or bad thing.

[Cleita]

8. I can't see that they contributed anything to the Democratic

caucus by being DINOS. They might as well be Republicans. At least we would know who they are. I think Democrats can still get business done with an honest 51 majority in the Senate.

[WhiteTara]

9. Connie won't have to spend money on the primary

and can save her money for the general in November.

[JVS]

10. It's just part of the DLC make an ass out of yourself and then have the republicans take your seat..

unopposed strategy.

[Omaha Steve]

11. Nelson does what it takes to get elected in the 'BIG RED" state

I don't think he will be elected to a third term in 2012.

[Pirate Smile]

12. A lot of these seats are much more likely to go Republican now. While they annoy the crap out of us

I don't think it is preferable to have a R who votes with us 0% of the time vs. a D who votes with us 80% (or 70%) of the time.

We could reach and get Stupak and Lincoln. The compromises to do so pissed us off but they could be reached. Republicans are unreachable.

"Bipartisanship" is now the negotiations between Dems and conservative/moderate Dems. There is no negotiating with Republicans. They've decided on a wall of opposition and the more Obama/Reid has to negotiate with them, the worse a bill will be. A jobs bill with Martha Coakley as MA Senator would have been better then what we had to do to get Republican support so we could pass some of the smaller, piece-meal bills.

The Republicans currently have a very "principled" party. Their tent is small but they all agree. Not a winning recipe.

[etherealtruth]

13. Probably "bad"

Stupak is likely as "good" as it gets from his district. Any Dem from that district is not going to be "liberal" .... I doubt that a dem of any stripe will be elected in his place.

[customerserviceguy]

14. November is an opportunity

to rid ourselves of Blue Dogs, maybe some teabaggers will have a chance to fill those seats and make complete asses of themselves. Meanwhile, we get to replace them with solid progressives when President Obama is on the top of the ballot again, and his economic policies will have been found conclusively to be the right ones.

[kentuck]

19. I tend to agree with this sentiment...

Get rid of some of the deadwood in our Party that is dragging us down and keeping the rest of the Party from doing what it could be doing if not for these so-called "Democrats". Their philosophy is much closer to the Republican Party but they seem to believe they have a better chance at winning elections as Democrats, I suppose?? I think a Democratic Party with 51 votes you can depend on is better than 59 votes that you cannot depend upon. We need to build a stronger Democratic Party than we now have. Even with sixty votes in the Senate and an over-whelming majority in the House, this was one of the weakest Democratic majorities of our lifetimes. We need to ask why? And we need to fix it.

[Zen Democrat]

18. Stupak was a C-Street resident. Better to wave goodbye to that seat, IMO. nt

[HughMoran]

20. "doing what is best for the people"

Can't do a damn thing if Dems have no power. I'm puzzled at the obviousness?

[kentuck]

21. A corporate majority is not in the interest of the people....

We need a few replacements. Just what is a Democrat anyway? Can they be anti-taxes and pro-corporations and still call themselves "Democrats"? Can they be anti-choice and anti- equal rights and still call themselves "Democrats"? Sounds like one big happy Republican Party?

[HughMoran]

22. On average, there are FAR more good Dems than bad.

Compared to what's going on with the 'crazy' party, it's not the end of the world that a few marginal people help us keep a majority. Just wait and see what happens when we lose the majority - you'll be wondering what you were thinking.

[kentuck]

23. They help us keep a majority that is unable to do anything...

because they require pay-offs and compromises that hurt the Party. We end up with a majority that is worthless because they stand for nothing.

[HughMoran]

25. Quick Poll Question - what's better, Stupak or a Republican

before answering, remember that not one Republican voted for HCR and will do everything to stop our agenda. Stupak voted for HCR.

[kentuck]

31. Republican.

[HughMoran]

34. Case closed

:crazy:

[kentuck]

48. At least you know how the Repub will vote.

He will stab you from the front, not in the back. As do some of these so-called "Democrats".

[HughMoran]

52. Stupak voted for HCR - something we've been trying to pass for, what, 50 years or more?

It may not be perfect, but I'll be damned if I'm giving up the protections it offers. Why do you think Dems are daring the Repukes to run on 'repeal'?

[kentuck]

59. After he pissed off every woman in our caucus.

over something that wasn't even in the bill. He made an ass of himself.

[HughMoran]

63. & he caved, slammed the Republicans to the ground, and voted for the Bill

...now you think a Republican will do a better job for the people in his district. Ummm - ok?

[kentuck]

66. after he got the promise of an executive order from his President...

and after all the damage he had done up to that point, he caved. The people will have to decide who they want to represent them. Them may choose another Democrat, I hear?

[HughMoran]

71. I'd love to see them choose another Democrat

Don't expect them to be pro-choice if they win, however.

[HughMoran]

26. So the stimulus, HC reform & all the other changes are 'nothing'

:crazy:

[kentuck]

33. Not a lot to brag about just yet.

But I'm hoping it will bear fruit in the near future.

[HughMoran]

27. What would the motherfucking KKKpublicans get done?

...besides look for ways to take our rights away and throw us in jail?

[kentuck]

35. Just because they have "D" by their names...

does not make them Democrats. Sometimes they are obstructionists.

[HughMoran]

36. Sometimes does not a rule make

Baby/bathwater

black/white thinking

NO!

[HughMoran]

28. So the minority is better?

:wtf:

[kentuck]

37. Losing Stupak, Lincoln, and Nelson would not make Democrats a minority??

But it might send a message to a few other Blue Dogs? If you're going to call yourself a Democrat, then vote like one. Otherwise, we will look for someone else that will. Got it?

[HughMoran]

38. except Nate Silver Tweeted yesterday that we could lose 60-70 seats worst case

This isn't a matter of degrees, we may lose the majority by one seat.

Helllo Speaker Bonier :puke:

[kentuck]

40. If that be the case...

let us hope the weasels are in that 60-70 seats lost...Maybe we can start building the Party from a strong foundation? Republicans will not take long to show they have no idea how to govern. That may be the price we have to pay?

[HughMoran]

43. That is the typical loser thinking that got Dems into the 40 year hiatus we've been in

You cannot be serious? That's what the right-wingers want us to think.

[kentuck]

46. I disagree with that.

We thought we had to be like Reagan and it's been downhill for the Party since that time. We have some hope with Obama but it is going to be a hard road.

[HughMoran]

49. An even harder road with Democrats jumping ship starting at 6 months in

You are not one to promote him, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

[kentuck]

56. Are you talking about the President or the Congress?

I think most folks are being very patient with the President. But they don't have the same patience for Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats that are taking the side of the Republicans and holding up or stopping needed legislation. Stupak was stupid for taking the "pro-life" position he did on the healthcare bill. Especially, since it didn't even exist.

[HughMoran]

58. Many were and still are ready to desert Obama - starting 3 months in IIRC

Most? maybe now that HCR passed, but it wasn't like that before...

[HughMoran]

29. How many Republicans boasted about voting for HCR before retiring?

Answer: 0

[HughMoran]

30. How will getting SC nominees though work when we're in the minority?

Can you say 'moderate' judge?

I thought you could.

[kentuck]

39. John Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford...

Nobody knows how Supreme Court judges will vote on different issues once they are independent to follow their own judgements. Just because a Democrat or Republican might nominate someone does not mean they will vote the Party line. It doesn't always happen like that.

[HughMoran]

41. Nobody knows for sure, but a little certainty can NOT hurt

Presidents have been getting a LOT better at weeding out true partisans - perhaps you noted Alito, Roberts & Thomas?

[kentuck]

44. But is that the extent of our argument?

I would agree it is best to have a President nominate judges. It is the President that nominates, isn't it??

[HughMoran]

47. & the Senate approves

Party of NO controlled Senate, NO even remotely liberal judges.

[kentuck]

50. Well, we should have no problem with Obama's next nomination, huh?

Let's see how far that 59 seat majority will get us. I think you exaggerate just a little.

[HughMoran]

53. There are several NE Republicans that will break a filibuster

I think you exaggerate just a little...

[kentuck]

60. Like they did with the healthcare bill??

Yeah, I remember Olympia Snowe was with us... Right!

[HughMoran]

65. Judicial nominees are MUCH different that HCR

Please stop this conflating everything with everything, it just doesn't work that way. They may support the filibuster, they may not, but they are much less likely to fall in lockstep on a good judicial nominee.

[kentuck]

67. But a Republican is a Republican .

...is a Republican.

[HughMoran]

69. Like a Blue Dog is a Democrat is a Democrat?

C'mon, you're not making sense.

[HughMoran]

32. How does Speaker Bonier sound to you?

Yeah, I almost puked too :puke:

[kentuck]

42. For personal reasons...

I have little respect for David Bonior.

[HughMoran]

45. Boehner

Pretty sad distraction there...

[kentuck]

51. Sorry, I was wondering about your connection.

Boehner? He's the least of our worries.

[HughMoran]

54. A Republican speaker of the House is the least of our worries?

WHAT???

[kentuck]

57. So long as we have a strong Democratic President.

Yes.

[HughMoran]

61. Democrat majority including Blue Dogs = bad. Republican majority = good. (same President obviously)

It's not like we're going to get a different President, therefor this can ONLY be bad.

[kentuck]

64. Would you prefer a "gang of 14" or

a 51 seat Democratic majority that supports the President? And who would you hold responsible if 7 Democrats went together with 7 Repubs to block the majority from doing what they felt needed to be done?

[HughMoran]

68. All 60 Dems voted for cloture on HCR & THEY PASSED THE BILL

...so, you may want to reconsider such talk.

[kentuck]

70. and then they passed the single-payer option...

that all their people they represent wanted and we lived happily ever after... OK?

[HughMoran]

72. that's off topic

& you know it.

How many single payer bills will the Republicans put forth?

Answer: -1 (they're going to try to repeal what we did get)

[kentuck]

73. Right !

It's all a dream with this Democratic Senate. But that's alright. They give us a good majority. Well, at least, a majority.

[HughMoran]

74. My kids will benefit in a major way from this majority rule

...your cynicism aside, this will be one of the most productive 1st terms for a President in many many many years.

[kentuck]

75. Oh, I thought we were talking about Stupak ??

I have not given up on the President yet. But he deserves a better Congress to work with.

[HughMoran]

76. Agreed - Congress sucks.

Sadly, it's only going to get worse IMO.

[graywarrior]

24. It's as if he was sticking it to Obama

[NNN0LHI]

55. Having a Dem driven out of office with death threats against him and his family a good thing?

How can that even be a question?

When this kind of thing happens we lose. Simple as that. To think otherwise is delusional.

Don

[kentuck]

62. It backfired on him...

He was sucking up to the pro-lifers and, in the end, they turned on him like vipers. It was his own making. He did not deserve the threats but, in my opinion, he did not deserve Democratic support for re-election either. Just my opinion.