Conservative Democrats Ain’t Listening, Vote Them Out!
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
But they didn't. Republicans have been losing seats since 2004.
About seven of the about forty-seven didn't vote for the spending bill and you call that a battle?
A great article I didn't get around to posting earlier. Long, which is why I'm not copy/pasting.
Blue Dogs Bark
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/hayes?rel=hp_currently
No republicrats!
House Democrat Explains His 'No' Vote
[3 min 57 sec]
Morning Edition, February 19, 2009 · Seven Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted against President Obama's stimulus package. One of them was Walter Minnick, who's newly elected from a rural and conservative part of Idaho. He tells Steve Inskeep that he voted against the plan because it cost too much in taxpayer money.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100855484
[3 min 57 sec]
Morning Edition, February 19, 2009 · Seven Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted against President Obama's stimulus package. One of them was Walter Minnick, who's newly elected from a rural and conservative part of Idaho. He tells Steve Inskeep that he voted against the plan because it cost too much in taxpayer money.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100855484
Congresspedia
Sounds like he doesn’t have any solutions to the economy either. “Spend the minimum amount of money to get maximum number of jobs”? What the fuck does that mean? My point, it’s easy to be against anything, but courageous to be for something.
source: The Hill
Vulnerable Dems vote against stimulus
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 02/14/09 11:45 AM [ET]
Several conservative Democrats who are likely to face tough races in 2010 joined Republicans in voting against the massive economic stimulus package passed Friday.
Among the seven Democrats who opposed the measure, Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) and Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) are all expected to get strong Republican challengers next year, and the three have already been a target of some national GOP attacks.
In a statement released when he opposed the House version of the stimulus package in late January, Minnick slammed what he called "the largest spending bill in U.S. history."
"The measure began with a tight focus on job creation and infrastructure improvements, but ballooned into a ‘something for everything’ spending proposal," Minnick said in the statement. Instead, he called for more restrained spending on "worthwhile programs."
Minnick beat ex-Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) in a deeply conservative Gem State district by a narrow 51 percent to 49 percent margin even as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) beat President Obama with 62 percent in the same district. Sali has filed papers to face Minnick again, though he could have trouble in a crowded GOP field.
Griffith replaced Rep. Bud Cramer (D) in a northern Alabama district centered around Huntsville, edging out Republican Wayne Parker by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. Bright took over for retiring Rep. Terry Everett (R) in a Montgomery-based district, edging Republican Jay Love by just 1,700 votes out of more than 285,000 cast.
All three incumbents have been targets of early attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC on Friday slammed Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, labeling them as endorsers of a massive "spending spree."
Another Democrat who voted against the package, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), could be headed for a difficult race, though not in his own congressional district. Shuler is said to be mulling a challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and recently hosted ex-President Bill Clinton for a fundraising lunch.
Shuler has one of the most conservative voting records of any House Democrat.
The remaining three no voters are long-established fiscal hawks. Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) all opposed the stimulus bill, though DeFazio voted in favor of the bill in late January.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) did not vote on the measure, though he had vociferously supported the House-passed version. Clyburn left for a rehersal dinner as his daughter prepares to get married this weekend.
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) voted present, telling the Chicago Tribune he didn't think the bill did enough to create transportation infrastructure jobs.
Reps. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Frank Kratovil (D-Mary.) and Paul Kanjorski (D-Penn.) all opposed the original House measure but backed the conference version.
Vulnerable Dems vote against stimulus
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 02/14/09 11:45 AM [ET]
Several conservative Democrats who are likely to face tough races in 2010 joined Republicans in voting against the massive economic stimulus package passed Friday.
Among the seven Democrats who opposed the measure, Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) and Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) are all expected to get strong Republican challengers next year, and the three have already been a target of some national GOP attacks.
In a statement released when he opposed the House version of the stimulus package in late January, Minnick slammed what he called "the largest spending bill in U.S. history."
"The measure began with a tight focus on job creation and infrastructure improvements, but ballooned into a ‘something for everything’ spending proposal," Minnick said in the statement. Instead, he called for more restrained spending on "worthwhile programs."
Minnick beat ex-Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) in a deeply conservative Gem State district by a narrow 51 percent to 49 percent margin even as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) beat President Obama with 62 percent in the same district. Sali has filed papers to face Minnick again, though he could have trouble in a crowded GOP field.
Griffith replaced Rep. Bud Cramer (D) in a northern Alabama district centered around Huntsville, edging out Republican Wayne Parker by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. Bright took over for retiring Rep. Terry Everett (R) in a Montgomery-based district, edging Republican Jay Love by just 1,700 votes out of more than 285,000 cast.
All three incumbents have been targets of early attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC on Friday slammed Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, labeling them as endorsers of a massive "spending spree."
Another Democrat who voted against the package, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), could be headed for a difficult race, though not in his own congressional district. Shuler is said to be mulling a challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and recently hosted ex-President Bill Clinton for a fundraising lunch.
Shuler has one of the most conservative voting records of any House Democrat.
The remaining three no voters are long-established fiscal hawks. Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) all opposed the stimulus bill, though DeFazio voted in favor of the bill in late January.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) did not vote on the measure, though he had vociferously supported the House-passed version. Clyburn left for a rehersal dinner as his daughter prepares to get married this weekend.
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) voted present, telling the Chicago Tribune he didn't think the bill did enough to create transportation infrastructure jobs.
Reps. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Frank Kratovil (D-Mary.) and Paul Kanjorski (D-Penn.) all opposed the original House measure but backed the conference version.
This is what happens when the Democratic Party main plan was to get more seats not making sure they got people who would help push a Democratic agenda. They still don't seem to be a very organized group. They have the majority in both houses thanks more to Bush and the GOP's incompetence and Barack Obama and Howard Dean's 50 State strategy than anything else.
<font size="5"><Center>
Democrats vs. Democrats</font size><font size="4">
Liberal groups are unhappy with the prospect of having
moderate Democrats slow down Obama's agenda. </font size></center>
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) found himself targeted
by an ad accusing him of “standing in the way
of President Obama’s reforms. Photo: AP
P o l i t i c o
By PATRICK O'CONNOR
& MANU RAJU
March 25, 26 2009
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner snarled at moderate Democrats Wednesday, but the real bite came from liberal groups frustrated by centrist opposition to Barack Obama’s budget priorities.
As Boehner accused Blue Dog Democrats of being “lap dogs” for Obama, MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, the labor-backed organization that serves as the White House’s chief third-party operation, began airing ads Wednesday urging moderate Democrats in both the House and the Senate to get on board with the president’s budget.
Among the targets of Americans United for Change is Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who declared the ads “not very helpful.”
“The liberal groups need to understand that we are not elected to represent the president,” Pryor said. “We’re elected to represent our states, and we are trying to reflect the attitudes and values of the people who sent us to Washington.”
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is also unhappy with the friendly fire. Bayh announced last week that a group of centrist Democrats had come together to negotiate as a bloc with the White House and party leaders on major legislation. He promptly found himself targeted by an ad accusing him of “standing in the way of President Obama’s reforms.”
“We literally have no agenda,” Bayh shot back. “How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?”
But liberal groups that worked hard to elect Obama are unhappy with the prospect of having moderate Democrats like Pryor, Bayh and the Blue Dogs in the House trying to slow down his agenda.
“We are going to need almost every Democratic vote to pass the budget,” said MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben. “Our ads ensure the voices of our 5 million members and the millions of other Americans who support this budget can be heard over the army of lobbyists.”
A spokesman for Americans United said the ads were more about offsetting pressure on these lawmakers who "are hearing it from the big oil and insurance companies and others who are very concerned about losing their giveaways from the Bush era."
"There’s zero anger coming from our end," said Americans United spokesman Jeremy Funk. "The point of this ad effort is to make sure the moderate Democratic and Republican members who are critical to the outcome of this budget hear it loud and strong from the real folks they represent about their support for President Obama’s commitments to healthcare reform, education and energy."
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a registered independent who leans far left, complained that “so-called moderates have the threat of voting with the Republicans” while “those of us who believe in protecting the needs of middle-income working families don’t have that luxury.”
But the Democrats under attack in the new ads claim that they, too, are watching out for working-class families. “My concern is that we have this mountain of debt,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire — one of the targets of the MoveOn.org advertising campaign. “We have a short-term fiscal crisis that we need to dig ourselves out from. Is this the right time to put three massive initiatives in the budget?”
Leadership aides were grumbling about the liberal advertising campaigns. Asked if the ads were unfair, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hadn’t heard them yet and that it would depend on how they were phrased.
And while Pryor and Bayh were put off by the spots, some of the other targets took them in stride.
“I don’t mind hearing from folks on either side of the issue,” said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner. “I’m going to do what I think is right.”
“They’re just expressing their views,” said Louisiana Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, another target. “It’s not views I necessarily agree with, but there is no bad blood here on our end.”
Democratic House and Senate budget writers released their own budget proposals this week, and they punted on some of the toughest choices set forth in Obama’s plan. Neither bill sets aside fast-track consideration for health care reform or a controversial cap-and-trade program. The House bill also included balanced budget protections long sought by the Blue Dogs.
Republicans are expected to oppose the final budget bills en masse whenever they come to the floor.
On Tuesday, Boehner told his rank and file that their goal should be to delay consideration of the budget because the longer it sits around, “the worse it smells,” according to people who attended the closed-door caucus meeting.
On Wednesday, he unloaded on the Blue Dogs, saying they’d done nothing to work with House Republicans and ought to “get off people’s laps and actually do something.”
Boehner’s remarks — made at a Yale Club event — sparked a sharp response from Blue Dog co-chairman Charlie Melancon, who said that Boehner and the Republicans had done nothing to restrain eight years of big government spending under George W. Bush. He said the Blue Dogs would “continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer common-sense policy alternatives.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20504.html
Democrats vs. Democrats</font size><font size="4">
Liberal groups are unhappy with the prospect of having
moderate Democrats slow down Obama's agenda. </font size></center>
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) found himself targeted
by an ad accusing him of “standing in the way
of President Obama’s reforms. Photo: AP
P o l i t i c o
By PATRICK O'CONNOR
& MANU RAJU
March 25, 26 2009
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner snarled at moderate Democrats Wednesday, but the real bite came from liberal groups frustrated by centrist opposition to Barack Obama’s budget priorities.
As Boehner accused Blue Dog Democrats of being “lap dogs” for Obama, MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, the labor-backed organization that serves as the White House’s chief third-party operation, began airing ads Wednesday urging moderate Democrats in both the House and the Senate to get on board with the president’s budget.
Among the targets of Americans United for Change is Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who declared the ads “not very helpful.”
“The liberal groups need to understand that we are not elected to represent the president,” Pryor said. “We’re elected to represent our states, and we are trying to reflect the attitudes and values of the people who sent us to Washington.”
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is also unhappy with the friendly fire. Bayh announced last week that a group of centrist Democrats had come together to negotiate as a bloc with the White House and party leaders on major legislation. He promptly found himself targeted by an ad accusing him of “standing in the way of President Obama’s reforms.”
“We literally have no agenda,” Bayh shot back. “How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?”
But liberal groups that worked hard to elect Obama are unhappy with the prospect of having moderate Democrats like Pryor, Bayh and the Blue Dogs in the House trying to slow down his agenda.
“We are going to need almost every Democratic vote to pass the budget,” said MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben. “Our ads ensure the voices of our 5 million members and the millions of other Americans who support this budget can be heard over the army of lobbyists.”
A spokesman for Americans United said the ads were more about offsetting pressure on these lawmakers who "are hearing it from the big oil and insurance companies and others who are very concerned about losing their giveaways from the Bush era."
"There’s zero anger coming from our end," said Americans United spokesman Jeremy Funk. "The point of this ad effort is to make sure the moderate Democratic and Republican members who are critical to the outcome of this budget hear it loud and strong from the real folks they represent about their support for President Obama’s commitments to healthcare reform, education and energy."
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a registered independent who leans far left, complained that “so-called moderates have the threat of voting with the Republicans” while “those of us who believe in protecting the needs of middle-income working families don’t have that luxury.”
But the Democrats under attack in the new ads claim that they, too, are watching out for working-class families. “My concern is that we have this mountain of debt,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire — one of the targets of the MoveOn.org advertising campaign. “We have a short-term fiscal crisis that we need to dig ourselves out from. Is this the right time to put three massive initiatives in the budget?”
Leadership aides were grumbling about the liberal advertising campaigns. Asked if the ads were unfair, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hadn’t heard them yet and that it would depend on how they were phrased.
And while Pryor and Bayh were put off by the spots, some of the other targets took them in stride.
“I don’t mind hearing from folks on either side of the issue,” said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner. “I’m going to do what I think is right.”
“They’re just expressing their views,” said Louisiana Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, another target. “It’s not views I necessarily agree with, but there is no bad blood here on our end.”
Democratic House and Senate budget writers released their own budget proposals this week, and they punted on some of the toughest choices set forth in Obama’s plan. Neither bill sets aside fast-track consideration for health care reform or a controversial cap-and-trade program. The House bill also included balanced budget protections long sought by the Blue Dogs.
Republicans are expected to oppose the final budget bills en masse whenever they come to the floor.
On Tuesday, Boehner told his rank and file that their goal should be to delay consideration of the budget because the longer it sits around, “the worse it smells,” according to people who attended the closed-door caucus meeting.
On Wednesday, he unloaded on the Blue Dogs, saying they’d done nothing to work with House Republicans and ought to “get off people’s laps and actually do something.”
Boehner’s remarks — made at a Yale Club event — sparked a sharp response from Blue Dog co-chairman Charlie Melancon, who said that Boehner and the Republicans had done nothing to restrain eight years of big government spending under George W. Bush. He said the Blue Dogs would “continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer common-sense policy alternatives.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20504.html
Conservatives have been so successful in demonizing the term liberalism as a philosophy and political act in the main stream of American society that the Republican Party has essentially purged itself of liberals and moderates. As a result, the moderate republicans of 30 years ago are now the conservative democrats of today. Most of these Conservadems are afraid of or have no intent in challenging big corporate interests, since their political futures are subsidized by these criminal entities. The only solution is to mobilize from the grass roots of the districts of these representatives and offer clear alternatives to these obstructionist attitudes which prevent our country from moving forward.
source: Colorado Independent
<iframe src="http://coloradoindependent.com/24480/udall-bennet-join-blue-dog-group-of-moderate-democratic-senators" width=750 height=1000></iframe>
Just to put this in to perspective, these are the same people that aided Bush during his regime. Keep this in mind.
source: http://allforums.net/archive/t-29572.html
The following is a list of Democrats who voted for the FISA Bill which signed into law the Bush administrations authority to eavesdrop on US citizens, making surveillance without warrants, which was being conducted in secret by the NSA and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, legal.
Senate:
Evan Bayh
Tom Carper
Bob Casey
Kent Conrad
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Amy Klobuchar
Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Claire McCaskill
Barbara Mikulski
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar
Jim Webb
House:
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
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
<iframe src="http://coloradoindependent.com/24480/udall-bennet-join-blue-dog-group-of-moderate-democratic-senators" width=750 height=1000></iframe>
*************************************************
Just to put this in to perspective, these are the same people that aided Bush during his regime. Keep this in mind.
source: http://allforums.net/archive/t-29572.html
The following is a list of Democrats who voted for the FISA Bill which signed into law the Bush administrations authority to eavesdrop on US citizens, making surveillance without warrants, which was being conducted in secret by the NSA and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, legal.
Senate:
Evan Bayh
Tom Carper
Bob Casey
Kent Conrad
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Amy Klobuchar
Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Claire McCaskill
Barbara Mikulski
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar
Jim Webb
House:
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
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
Thoughtone.......uhhhhh, How did we omit Obama's name from the list of Dems that voted with Mr. Bush on FISA? 
Even McCain had enough sense to stay away from that landmine
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Even McCain had enough sense to stay away from that landmine
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Thoughtone.......uhhhhh, How did we omit Obama's name from the list of Dems that voted with Mr. Bush on FISA?
Even McCain had enough sense to stay away from that landmine
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
I have a whole thread on that. What goes around, comes around.
cool, but don't come with nothin weak! Everybody remember, I'm of the opinion that both sides are undermining your civil liberties, as evidenced by the above FISA vote.
Where are your posts criticizing republicans?
Just out of curiosity, would you rather have the United States like the old Soviet Union? Is that your vision of this country? Remember, the wasn't any "racism"....
Better yet, would you like our country to adapt Cuba's version of communism? I mean why just stick to weak socialism, why not go ALL the way, right? Let me guess, you got your Che shirt on right now? I bet you can't stand how this country is even with Obama as president. Thats why you seem so unhappy right? Oh right, this country is soo unfair, so you got this vision of a utopia where NOONE has to pay anything...right? No need for military, guns, or private property because the government will take care of all of that, right?
10 Democrats vote yea to cut estate taxes for supremely wealthy; 5 are ConservaDems
There priority is not the middle class but the upper class.
<iframe src=" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5386120" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
There priority is not the middle class but the upper class.
<iframe src=" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5386120" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Re: 10 Democrats vote yea to cut estate taxes for supremely wealthy; 5 are ConservaDe
Damn real, corporations and the wealthy!
Damn real, corporations and the wealthy!
<font size="5"><center>
Do Blue Dog Dems have clout
to block Obama on spending?</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman
Monday, May 4, 2009
WASHINGTON — Moderate Democrats could hold the key to the fate of President Barack Obama's agenda this year.
They have the numbers to be decisive in the House of Representatives — the 51-member Blue Dog Coalition could doom an initiative if it sticks together, since Democrats control 256 seats, it takes 218 votes to win, and no Republicans have voted for major Democratic budget bills this year.
So far, though, it's debatable how much sway the Democratic centrists have had.
They declared victory last week when they got written promises from Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they'd support paying for major new spending measures with offsetting spending cuts or higher taxes to avoid driving deficits even higher.
The Blue Dogs also claimed victory in helping derail an effort to change Senate rules to make it easier to cut off debate on global warming legislation. Moderates wanted a full airing of an issue that many fear could mean higher energy costs or burdens on hometown industries.
Critics, however, find those minor victories. The Obama-Pelosi pledge was a promise that, in the heat of battle this fall, could be easily skirted.
"It's hard to be effective on deficits with the economy in a deep slump," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
The emissions policy was also pushed by influential senators from both parties.
Even so, there's no doubt that the Blue Dog Coalition is full of potential.
"They're all afraid of us. Fear of us is its own motivator," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
And they're not afraid to be ornery.
"I'm here to represent my constituency. I'm not here to represent anyone in the leadership," said Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine.
Still, Cooper conceded, so far it's hard to say where the coalition has made a difference.
"Often idealism clashes with reality," he said. "I'd like to think if we weren't there, things would be worse."
The Blue Dogs formed 14 years ago, as the dwindling number of conservative and moderate Democrats decided they could be more effective as a bloc. Their name came from one of two sources.
Some attribute it to the paintings of Louisiana artist George Rodrigue, whose paintings of blue dogs were fixtures in some lawmakers' offices. Another explanation is that former Rep. Pete Geren, D-Texas, coined the term after observing that "Yellow Dog Democrats," generally Southerners who'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, had been "choked blue" by party liberals.
Today, members come from all over the nation, though most tend to be from the South. They share a common interest in fiscal discipline, though they tend to diverge on other issues.
There are two views of how much clout they have at the moment.
One version is that they've done well. "The number one point of concern is we need enforceable budget discipline," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and they got that assurance from the top.
"Creating a new non-emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion would require offsetting revenue increases or spending reductions," Obama pledged in an April 24 letter.
Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., went further four days later, writing that the concept would be used for four bills affecting middle class tax cuts, alternative minimum tax relief, estate tax provisions and changes in the Medicare rate for doctors.
"If those criteria are not met," Hoyer said later, "we will not bring that legislation to the floor."
Critics, however, noted that such a pledge could set up a dangerous showdown. Suppose the Senate does not go along with the agreement — would it then be doomed in the House?
Blue Dogs think so.
"I hope this is a confidence-building step we can use to help address other issues,' said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D.
Gary Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, warned, however, that "Pelosi doesn't control the Senate, and neither does Obama. They can say 'We're on your side,' but delivering results is another matter entirely."
Even in the House, it's unclear what the Blue Dogs can deliver.
On budget issues, for instance, holding the coalition together has been tough. Earlier this year, the group urged lawmakers to freeze nondefense discretionary spending, which includes most popular domestic programs, at the rate of inflation, which is virtually zero.
Instead, Congress last week approved a budget with an increase of about 2.9 percent over the next five years. Seventeen Democrats, including 13 Blue Dogs, opposed the measure.
"We were handed a historic debt by the previous administration, and with recent spending measures, this budget does not improve the situation and will only bring us back to where we started in January," explained Rep. Parker Griffith, D-Ala.
Democratic leaders face another problem: Many of the moderates come from the most politically vulnerable congressional districts. Many were first elected in 2006 and 2008, when a Democratic tide swept the country.
No one knows if that momentum will continue in 2010; moderate members may have to show some independence from the White House and Pelosi.
One way to do that is to stick with other moderates and show that a centrist view will be heard, especially on thorny issues such as health care, Michaud said. But can Blue Dogs put aside their demand that a costly overhaul not be fiscally irresponsible?
Hard to say, Cooper said. "Often," he said, "idealism meets reality."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/67470.html
Do Blue Dog Dems have clout
to block Obama on spending?</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman
Monday, May 4, 2009
WASHINGTON — Moderate Democrats could hold the key to the fate of President Barack Obama's agenda this year.
They have the numbers to be decisive in the House of Representatives — the 51-member Blue Dog Coalition could doom an initiative if it sticks together, since Democrats control 256 seats, it takes 218 votes to win, and no Republicans have voted for major Democratic budget bills this year.
So far, though, it's debatable how much sway the Democratic centrists have had.
They declared victory last week when they got written promises from Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they'd support paying for major new spending measures with offsetting spending cuts or higher taxes to avoid driving deficits even higher.
The Blue Dogs also claimed victory in helping derail an effort to change Senate rules to make it easier to cut off debate on global warming legislation. Moderates wanted a full airing of an issue that many fear could mean higher energy costs or burdens on hometown industries.
Critics, however, find those minor victories. The Obama-Pelosi pledge was a promise that, in the heat of battle this fall, could be easily skirted.
"It's hard to be effective on deficits with the economy in a deep slump," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
The emissions policy was also pushed by influential senators from both parties.
Even so, there's no doubt that the Blue Dog Coalition is full of potential.
"They're all afraid of us. Fear of us is its own motivator," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
And they're not afraid to be ornery.
"I'm here to represent my constituency. I'm not here to represent anyone in the leadership," said Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine.
Still, Cooper conceded, so far it's hard to say where the coalition has made a difference.
"Often idealism clashes with reality," he said. "I'd like to think if we weren't there, things would be worse."
The Blue Dogs formed 14 years ago, as the dwindling number of conservative and moderate Democrats decided they could be more effective as a bloc. Their name came from one of two sources.
Some attribute it to the paintings of Louisiana artist George Rodrigue, whose paintings of blue dogs were fixtures in some lawmakers' offices. Another explanation is that former Rep. Pete Geren, D-Texas, coined the term after observing that "Yellow Dog Democrats," generally Southerners who'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, had been "choked blue" by party liberals.
Today, members come from all over the nation, though most tend to be from the South. They share a common interest in fiscal discipline, though they tend to diverge on other issues.
There are two views of how much clout they have at the moment.
One version is that they've done well. "The number one point of concern is we need enforceable budget discipline," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and they got that assurance from the top.
"Creating a new non-emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion would require offsetting revenue increases or spending reductions," Obama pledged in an April 24 letter.
Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., went further four days later, writing that the concept would be used for four bills affecting middle class tax cuts, alternative minimum tax relief, estate tax provisions and changes in the Medicare rate for doctors.
"If those criteria are not met," Hoyer said later, "we will not bring that legislation to the floor."
Critics, however, noted that such a pledge could set up a dangerous showdown. Suppose the Senate does not go along with the agreement — would it then be doomed in the House?
Blue Dogs think so.
"I hope this is a confidence-building step we can use to help address other issues,' said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D.
Gary Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, warned, however, that "Pelosi doesn't control the Senate, and neither does Obama. They can say 'We're on your side,' but delivering results is another matter entirely."
Even in the House, it's unclear what the Blue Dogs can deliver.
On budget issues, for instance, holding the coalition together has been tough. Earlier this year, the group urged lawmakers to freeze nondefense discretionary spending, which includes most popular domestic programs, at the rate of inflation, which is virtually zero.
Instead, Congress last week approved a budget with an increase of about 2.9 percent over the next five years. Seventeen Democrats, including 13 Blue Dogs, opposed the measure.
"We were handed a historic debt by the previous administration, and with recent spending measures, this budget does not improve the situation and will only bring us back to where we started in January," explained Rep. Parker Griffith, D-Ala.
Democratic leaders face another problem: Many of the moderates come from the most politically vulnerable congressional districts. Many were first elected in 2006 and 2008, when a Democratic tide swept the country.
No one knows if that momentum will continue in 2010; moderate members may have to show some independence from the White House and Pelosi.
One way to do that is to stick with other moderates and show that a centrist view will be heard, especially on thorny issues such as health care, Michaud said. But can Blue Dogs put aside their demand that a costly overhaul not be fiscally irresponsible?
Hard to say, Cooper said. "Often," he said, "idealism meets reality."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/67470.html
Ark. crowd mocks lawmakers over Obama health plan
Ark. crowd mocks lawmakers over Obama health plan
By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer,
Associated Press Writer 4 mins ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – An unruly Little Rock crowd heckled and shouted at two Arkansas Democratic congressmen Wednesday, accusing them of supporting a government-backed health plan that would take away Americans' personal choice and freedom.
At one point, U.S. Rep. Mike Ross sat with his head in his hands while the crowd shouted. He and fellow Democratic Rep. Vic Snyder told audience members at a forum at Arkansas Children's Hospital that they wouldn't support a completely government-run, single-payer health insurance plan.
"But that's what Obama wants!" an audience member shouted, leading to more heckling.
Ross, who represents south Arkansas, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and has led his fellow Blue Dog Democrats in delaying a vote on the health care overhaul until at least September. Ross is chairman of the Blue Dogs' health care task force.
The Blue Dogs — a group of mostly Southern, fiscally conservative Democrats — have not committed to supporting or opposing the bill yet. A deal reached last week calls for exempting more small businesses from a requirement to offer coverage, cutting subsidies to help people buy health insurance and making any government-sponsored insurance plan negotiate payment rates with medical providers.
Lawmakers across the country are encountering growing public doubts about President Barack Obama's push to remake the system for providing medical care, evident in polls that find confidence in Obama's handling of the issue has fallen since January. Concerns are growing about government-run health plans, a growing federal deficit, and the impact on small businesses and end-of-life provisions.
"I've said this several times but let me see if I can make it a little more clear," Ross said. "I don't represent Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi or President Obama or (House Finance Committee Chairman) Barney Frank. I represent the people of Arkansas and I'm not voting for any bill that forces any one plan on anyone, period."
Many audience members cheered loudly when Ross said he wouldn't back anything that would provide federal funding for abortions or pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants.
But some were skeptical about the intentions of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.
Colleen Shoemaker of Bauxite apologized to the congressmen for being "out of line" and heckling them during the forum. She said the government was taking away Americans' rights.
"At this point in my life I have never seen my America turn into what it has turned into," she said. "And I don't think that representatives and senators are going to be able to (pass a plan that preserves personal freedom). I'm scared."
Though much of the crowd opposed Obama's plan, there were a few supporters.
"I'm a huge Obama fan," college student Jacob Kauffman told the crowd, which responded with a smattering of applause and a few chants of "Get a job."
Kauffman continued, "I was at mad at (Ross and Snyder) for not standing up for stronger health care reform. But after seeing this crowd tonight, I'm pleased with seeing what you have done. I've rather have you two overlook my health care plan than any private insurance bureaucrat any day."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_ark
Ark. crowd mocks lawmakers over Obama health plan
By JILL ZEMAN BLEED, Associated Press Writer,
Associated Press Writer 4 mins ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – An unruly Little Rock crowd heckled and shouted at two Arkansas Democratic congressmen Wednesday, accusing them of supporting a government-backed health plan that would take away Americans' personal choice and freedom.
At one point, U.S. Rep. Mike Ross sat with his head in his hands while the crowd shouted. He and fellow Democratic Rep. Vic Snyder told audience members at a forum at Arkansas Children's Hospital that they wouldn't support a completely government-run, single-payer health insurance plan.
"But that's what Obama wants!" an audience member shouted, leading to more heckling.
Ross, who represents south Arkansas, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and has led his fellow Blue Dog Democrats in delaying a vote on the health care overhaul until at least September. Ross is chairman of the Blue Dogs' health care task force.
The Blue Dogs — a group of mostly Southern, fiscally conservative Democrats — have not committed to supporting or opposing the bill yet. A deal reached last week calls for exempting more small businesses from a requirement to offer coverage, cutting subsidies to help people buy health insurance and making any government-sponsored insurance plan negotiate payment rates with medical providers.
Lawmakers across the country are encountering growing public doubts about President Barack Obama's push to remake the system for providing medical care, evident in polls that find confidence in Obama's handling of the issue has fallen since January. Concerns are growing about government-run health plans, a growing federal deficit, and the impact on small businesses and end-of-life provisions.
"I've said this several times but let me see if I can make it a little more clear," Ross said. "I don't represent Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi or President Obama or (House Finance Committee Chairman) Barney Frank. I represent the people of Arkansas and I'm not voting for any bill that forces any one plan on anyone, period."
Many audience members cheered loudly when Ross said he wouldn't back anything that would provide federal funding for abortions or pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants.
But some were skeptical about the intentions of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.
Colleen Shoemaker of Bauxite apologized to the congressmen for being "out of line" and heckling them during the forum. She said the government was taking away Americans' rights.
"At this point in my life I have never seen my America turn into what it has turned into," she said. "And I don't think that representatives and senators are going to be able to (pass a plan that preserves personal freedom). I'm scared."
Though much of the crowd opposed Obama's plan, there were a few supporters.
"I'm a huge Obama fan," college student Jacob Kauffman told the crowd, which responded with a smattering of applause and a few chants of "Get a job."
Kauffman continued, "I was at mad at (Ross and Snyder) for not standing up for stronger health care reform. But after seeing this crowd tonight, I'm pleased with seeing what you have done. I've rather have you two overlook my health care plan than any private insurance bureaucrat any day."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_ark
My take on this is that these Bluedog, Conserve-a-Dems represent districts that for the most part did not vote for Obama. They are in states that did not go for Obama. These congressmen will not support anything that places them too far from the next republican that can come behind them and take their seat. I say why let these congressman hold up the agenda. Let them swing to a republican seat. There are more than enough congressmen in the progressive caucus to off set them. Their stances are resulting to be nothing but a hindrance any way.
Cut bait or fish!
Cut bait or fish!
Well, IDK. Usually its hard to fish, without bait, especially the right bait. I really love going deep sea fishing in the Gulf. Love it !!! But I've yet to catch anything, without bait. I suppose, however, that some over-anxious or confused Red or Snapper will hit a baitless hook, every now and then, but not often and you just wouldn't expect it nor would you want to ride 30-40 miles out expecting to have a good day, without bait.
So, if you start defining the issue and arguments (the "Bait") without regard to the positions of some of the various "Hyphen-Democrats", i.e., Blue-Dog, etc., you're putting less bait on the hook (which makes it less attractive to the various Hyphen-Dems = less support for a particular measure), you're less likely then to get something passed - or - catch fish !
Of course, that concept is not unique to Democrats. The Republicans too understand that they must keep the issues defined in such a way as to bring more potential votes under their tent in order to be successful with their <s>agenda</s> . . . I mean . . . <u>fishing trip</u>.
No?
Question: Why are the Librarians not in power ???
Answer: not enough bait, so can't attract enough fish, and, therefore, can't pass shit = can't catch fish.
Problem: Third Parties tend to define their core issues much narrower around a core of ideas. If they can attract a wide audience, the more likely the party can get its candidates elected. One way 3rd party can attract a wider audience --> educate people to its core philosophy. Another way to attract a wider audience --> define the issues broader ("use more attractive bait"); however, the broader the definition/more attractive the bait, the more the 3rd party looks like or actually becomes one of the existing Big Two.
If we were playing Jeopardy, and all of the above is the answer, a question (which is really the correct answer in Jeopardy) might be: Why does Ron Paul look like and runs as, a Republican?
QueEx
P.S.
What I was really trying to say is: if you simply omit or act without regard to parts of your base, will you really have enough numbers to do whatever it is you want to do ???
I would respectfully urge that is and always has been a major problem within the Democratic Party. It tends to come to power as a really "Big Tent" -- but it has a terrible time trying to control or harmonize vastly different ideological elements and factions, especially those either side of center, under that tent.
Since 1960, the last time Democrats sucessfully controlled the presidency (the measuring stick being 2 terms) was under Clinton, a center-democrat. If Obama and the Democratic Party cannot find ways to bring some degree of harmony between the left and right wings of the party, their days may be short.
QueEx
What I was really trying to say is: if you simply omit or act without regard to parts of your base, will you really have enough numbers to do whatever it is you want to do ???
I would respectfully urge that is and always has been a major problem within the Democratic Party. It tends to come to power as a really "Big Tent" -- but it has a terrible time trying to control or harmonize vastly different ideological elements and factions, especially those either side of center, under that tent.
Since 1960, the last time Democrats sucessfully controlled the presidency (the measuring stick being 2 terms) was under Clinton, a center-democrat. If Obama and the Democratic Party cannot find ways to bring some degree of harmony between the left and right wings of the party, their days may be short.
QueEx
Because their books are too heavy?
It's difficult to fish when the small fish are intimidated by the sharks.
You are familiar with the south. Many people their have a history of voting against their own interests. And I will go as far to say that many are just plain ignorant. Chanting "keep the government out of my Medicare, believing that the government is going to force granny to die, Obama is Nazi? To me indicate a lack of sophistication, to say the least. I'm not saying these attitudes are exclusive to the "south," however there are still many pockets in the south that are still loyal to the Democratic Party such as congressional districts in Oklahoma that refuse to see Obama as nothing other than a threatening Black man.
You bring up many good points, conveying the message in a form that your audience can digest is a key skill for a politician. For the most part the typical American is unable or unwilling to understand an issue on their own without the filter of the media and in Blue Dog districts and I will speculate on this, the range of opinions available to those residents from their local media outlets is rather limited.
What converted the rural, religious and conservative “Dust Belt” citizens of the 1930s to champion a liberal, elite northern Democrat for president like FDR was that their daily circumstances got so bad, their situations forced them to rethink their ideology.
FDR got social security enacted with very little republican support. LBJ got Medicare passed with few republican votes. Now politician with plans to further their careers dare not attempt to get rid of them. Remember GW’s attempt to move government social security funds to Wall Street accounts? How far did that get and does even the most well informed American even remember that episode?
I say Obama needs to devise a plan to get this done without those that really don’t want change. Believe me, 10 years down the road they will be chanting “keep the government out of my government choice plan!”
Because their books are too heavy?
It's difficult to fish when the small fish are intimidated by the sharks.
You are familiar with the south. Many people their have a history of voting against their own interests. And I will go as far to say that many are just plain ignorant. Chanting "keep the government out of my Medicare, believing that the government is going to force granny to die, Obama is Nazi? To me indicate a lack of sophistication, to say the least. I'm not saying these attitudes are exclusive to the "south," however there are still many pockets in the south that are still loyal to the Democratic Party such as congressional districts in Oklahoma that refuse to see Obama as nothing other than a threatening Black man.
You bring up many good points, conveying the message in a form that your audience can digest is a key skill for a politician. For the most part the typical American is unable or unwilling to understand an issue on their own without the filter of the media and in Blue Dog districts and I will speculate on this, the range of opinions available to those residents from their local media outlets is rather limited.
What converted the rural, religious and conservative “Dust Belt” citizens of the 1930s to champion a liberal, elite northern Democrat for president like FDR was that their daily circumstances got so bad, their situations forced them to rethink their ideology.
FDR got social security enacted with very little republican support. LBJ got Medicare passed with few republican votes. Now politician with plans to further their careers dare not attempt to get rid of them. Remember GW’s attempt to move government social security funds to Wall Street accounts? How far did that get and does even the most well informed American even remember that episode?
I say Obama needs to devise a plan to get this done without those that really don’t want change. Believe me, 10 years down the road they will be chanting “keep the government out of my government choice plan!”
even though I don't feel like laughing, the librarian joke is funny so here's a
anyway.presumptuous of you to tell someone else what their interest should be. IMO these people are the remnants of the old George Wallace Democrat. Maybe Dems should give them the final push out of the party. Probably make their life a little easier.
It would seem based solely on a persons socio-economic group that they are in supporting a proposal that would appear to address their condition should be a no brainer. Their belief's just may be different from others in a similar socio-economic group. Your dismissal of them as ignorant or unsophisticated does your side no good and plays into the arrogant, elitist, liberal tag conservatives have successfully hung around the necks of democrats. They may be Democrats in name only but still Democrats.
What really is stunning to me is the majority of the various factions in the Dem caucus can't come together on what I thought was one of the core belief's of te party, universal healthcare. All of the hyphens are suppose to disappear when it comes to the core beliefs of a political party or any movement.
FDR and LBJ are dead. Obama,Biden,Reid,Pelosi and Dean are the leadership of the Dems now.Take a look at the names again. Four Senators and a Congresswoman. Interesting isn't it,ll of them former or past chambermaids.
Since Obama is the President he assumes the chair and he is suppose to set the pace and direction for the others to follow. The fact that there are numerous bills in both chambers says to me Obama isn't giving direction but is instead still in Senator mode trying to forge some kind of consensus because that's all he knows. The rest have picked up on his weak leadership and are trying to fill the void within their own centers of power. Hence the division in the Dem ranks.
Obama and Dems can still pull this out with a single, coherent and fiscally sound bill with all of them pulling together.
Last edited:
if he wants to lead the Dems down that path, It's on him. As I've said in other threads, other countries have accomplished "free / socialized" healthcare simply because they, as a country, had very little debt.
idk, maybe I'm alone but we're 11 Trill in debt right now, with a diminishing manufacturing base, and there is Nothing "fiscally sound" about incurring more debt. One of the first lessons I learned about credit cards is: When you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
Personally I would say you're not alone. I believe the same way as you do.
Looking at it objectively, Democrats are determined to get this done now despite the current fiscal mess. I still think Dems have one final chance if they can package a bill that passes the smell test and then address the fiscal problems separately claiming it won't take effect for 4 yrs and they will take measures to reduce the debt by then
Similar threads
