(((((Kairos)))))

How sweet of you!
I’m always fascinated by your comments.
Blessings,

Here are the 80 Democrats
who voted FOR:

What were they thinking?
.
.
.
Akaka D-HI
Inouye D-HI

I think I know the answer for these 2 —

These are highly-respected, straight-shooting fellows, WWII veterans (Inouye was 442nd, Akaka ACE). They have each been in DC for ages, and are no stranger to swapping their votes on a losing proposition for someone’s vote on what they hold dear. In 2005, for example, they voted for another doomed attempt at drilling in ANWR in exchange for Ted Stevens’ support for Akaka’s Native Hawaiian Recognition Act.
I can’t say I categorically approve of this sort of horse-trading, but I look at these men’s overall record before I condemn them for taking a strategic tack. They DID, take note, vote against going into Iraq in the first place!

As for all the wailing and rending of garments I’ve witnessed across Left Blogistan in the last 48, I also DO NOT BELIEVE that our Progressive interests are served by anyone having a hissyfit, taking their toys home, sitting in their rooms sulking. Better, like the boys in Animal House, put our energies into encouraging our wingnut friends to stay home and pout!

FWIW, politics is my chosen spectator sport, the Blues are my team of choice, and yes, like a Mets fan, I’m determined to stay loyal, keep up the tuff love, and STAY ON THEIR ASSES TILL THEY GET IT RIGHT.

The Dems aren’yet the party we want, but they’re the party we got — unless you think reforming the GOP would be an easier undertaking? (hang in there, Ron Paul!)

We wish our congresscritters were all “never give a inch”-ers, but we need to pick them up, apply bandaids, kleenex, or a paddle as needed, and send ‘em back with a renewed sense of purpose, and a reminder that pink slips start getting issued early next year at primary time.

Thanks for another terrific post, Scarecrow, even if you conclude that the worst may yet be to come.

Somehow this capitulation by the democrats reminds me of their capitulation on the MCA vote last September. It makes absolutely no sense to me. In both cases, the principled stand would have been very popular with the voters, but in both cases they went with a DLC tactic of leaving no daylight between themselves and their republican opponents. … What’s up with these people?

All I can imagine is they think that letting the Iraq war go a little longer will perhaps prevent Bush&Co from starting an Iran war.

It’s a stretch, but that’s all I see which would bring together so many different Dems.

Wigwam @ 125

Voted for what? I really don’t understand. Some of those people are very much against the war and are not idiots. What the hell is going on?

Fear that the VRWC wurlitzer MIGHT paint them as weak, soft, and not supporting the troops. Which it is going to do anyway, regardless.

If they defeated this bill, that fear might prove valid. But, once it became clear that this bill was going to pass, any individual senator could “bravely” side with the American People and cast a token vote against the war. And the mighty Wurlitzer would have drawn attention to his/her courageous stand against this unpopular president and his unpopular war. But only fourteen took advantage of that no-cost opportunity (and thee of them were Republicans).

Obviously, I’m missing something.

(The Other) David Ehrenstein

could it be that this is a two pronged (or more) effort…. requiring both inside and outside the party effort?

The only prong I’m interested in is the one that brings this bloody farce to an end.

And yes, I’m the real David Ehrenstein.

Strange, isn’t it? It’s difficult to believe that so many Democrats are afraid of their constituents, with the war being so unpopular. Instead, they fear losing the support of the military-industrial lobbyists and donors on whom they depend. Also of Beltway journalists; they don’t want to be tarred with the loss of this war.

What the hell is the purpose of being in Congress if you are just there to follow the pack?

This is why vetting — actively checking out third-party candidates — is a two-fer for you.

If they check out (have actually filed their paperwork on a timely basis, have actual donors, actually go out and campaign, have real positions on issues besides “Vote against X by voting for me”, have real literature that reflects their campaign, so on), then you may find another party and candidate to support. Good for you.

But if you check out a candidate who has done none of those things, AND they refuse to answer questions or followup with real changes to their campaign, then you know that the other candidates in the same race have a problem. That’s a fake candidate who’ll peel away enough votes for other good and solid candidates to win. This happened right here in my backyard, and I regret that I didn’t do the check on this candidate myself, as the loss of the seat by a few hundred votes that went to a fake candidate has plunged our state into a fiscal crisis because that same seat would have changed the majority in the state senate.

You can do it, selise; you may make a really big difference.

i suspect it’s different in your state. here, in MA, our state leg is about 80% D, my rep and my senators are D, my state reps and city council reps are D. there just isn’t that big a risk from third parties (or even usually Rs) here. occasionally we get an R gov. but that’s it… we’re a D state.

not saying your strategy isn’t a good one for your situation… but where i’m at, it’s just not, usually, a good use of my time.