2006 Mid-Term Elections

[Mary]

FWIW, a bit more information about Harold Ford Jr:

- He voted for the federal marriage amendment and against benefits for same-sex couples.
- He voted for a repeal of the so-called "death" tax and to cut capital gains taxes.
- He always votes for anti-flag burning amendments.
- He wants to bring prayer back in school and is highly critical of Engel v. Vitale, the famous Supreme Court case which banned prayer in school.
- He continues to support the Iraq war.
- He voted for the partial birth abortion ban.
- He supported Bush's social security privatization plan.
- He's extremely outspoken about his dislike of national Democratic leadership (he ran for Pelosi's leadership seat and lost and he never misses an opportunity to remind everyone how much he dislikes Pelosi's liberalism)

And just FWIW, Ann Coulter once said he was her favorite Democrat....

....so - is this too much? or is the Democratic Party just doing what it needs to do in places like Tennessee?

[rockysigman]

Sounds like he's a piece of shit. I don't like a single thing you've said about him, other than that he's not Bill Frist. Other than being better than Bill Frist, I don't see much to like about him.

I hope to see Democratic control of Congress after this upcoming election, but if it's just in name only, and is just a continuation of all the disastrous policies that we've seen over the last few years, then I don't really know what the point is.

[shin]

We can not afford another 2 years of an unchecked Bush administration. There needs to be both houses of Congress under Democratic control. Period.

Lieberman was an isolated case: an senator from a blue state who no longer represented Connecticut's values, and who was notorious for providing the supposed "bipartisan" credibility needed for this administration to continue their policies under a guise of compromise. He was very important to the GOP propaganda machine.

Harold Ford Jr. will give no such credibility. And if he's the only one who can help a Democratic majority become a reality, fine by me.

[shin]

I mean, he can say all he wants about Pelosi or about anything else...he's the one helping her get into a seat of power where she can actually push the Democratic agenda. Useful idiot, I think the term is.

[rockysigman]

I agree that he's probably better than whoever the 'Pube nominee is, but take a look at what Mary just listed there...
--Continued support for the war in Iraq
--Prayer in public schools
--Anti-gay
--Anti-abortion rights
--Supports a flag burning amendment

I don't know a thing about him other than what Mary just posted, but those issues seem to suggest a Democrat in name only. What makes him better than the Republicans in power now? The (D) instead of an (R) next to his name doesn't mean a thing to me if he's going to support a continuation of all the garbage that Bush and congress have dealt us over the last few years. Is he better than the Republican challenger? Perhaps, I don't know.

I think a Democratic majority can and should be an improvement over what we've had recently, but if the Democrats are going to win, it's going to be heartbreaking for them to do nothing with their new-found power. I hate the current Republican leadership, but not directly because they are Republicans, but because every single issue that they devote their time and energy to is wrong, and this guy sounds like he's all for that.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Anyone who gets a standing ovation from Coulter can suck it as far as I'm concerned.

[Kensterberg]

Based just on what M posted, I don't see a difference between this guy from Tenn. and Lieberman. It was right for the Dems in Conn. to reject Holy Joe, and I'd have a hard time voting for this fellow (and I'm about as pragmatic a "liberal" Dem as anyone I know).

What's the good of having a Dem who is going to vote against his party on all the big issues? We need to have a check on Bush for the next two years, but it needs to be a meaningful one, not like that stupid "we won't fillibuster any S.Ct. nominees" agreement that Lieberman was part of.

Honestly, I'd rather make that seat be Republican in Tenn., that way their party is accountable for the shit that this guy endorses. There are simply some areas of the country where a "real" Democrat isn't going to win right now. We should accept that rather than water down (further) what it means to vote for a Democrat.

[Mary]

Well, to be fair, I was listing all of Ford Jr's conservative traits to point out just how far he diverges from mainline Democrats....but he is, of course, not unilaterally conservative. (He might not be as conservative as Ben Nelson from Nebraska, another notoriously conservative Democrat, for that matter) He did vote against the Bush tax cuts, he's strongly opposed to Bush energy policy and voted against ANWR drilliing, he does support abortion rights in the early months of pregnancy so he's not totally pro-life by any means (which puts him ahead of pro-life Democratic nominees in Montana and Pennsylvania on that issue), he supports affirmative action, he's solidly pro-union, he gets 100% ratings from Bread for the World and Partnership for the Homeless on his voting record every single year dating all the way back to 1999, etc etc. So the guy is very conservatie for a Democrat, but he's still to the left of mainline Republicans.

Ultimately, though, in this one election, I have to hold my nose and stand with shin (um, that wasn't to imply that shin smells - but that Ford himself stinks!!!) and support his candidacy anyway. Yes, his vote in Congress on many issues that matter won't be any different from the vote of Republicans, but it makes a huge difference in terms of agenda-setting and controlling the floor which party is the majority party. So even if he's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) his election will contribute to making Democrats the majority party in Congress, and thus giving them angeda-setting power, which could be enormously important. If there's a few DINOs in the group from Tennessee and Montana and Pennsylvania or whatever, as long as the bulk of the party is reliably left-of-center then controlling Congress could really, really matter.

Or so I hope, because on some level it makes me feel like shit to support this guy. Fuck knows my heart is with the fucking radicals. Not even the Pelosis, she's too conservative for me. I wanna vote for socialists. But alas, the times are so dark and dire, it seems, that I'll settle even for Harold Ford Jr....

M

[shin]

I do smell, if only because I just pulled a double

What makes him better than the Republicans in power now?

"Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi"

OR

"Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi"

Pick one.

And keep in mind, Ned Lamont would not have won the primary in Tennessee. It is extremely important that we pick our battles here.

[rockysigman]

shin said:

"Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi"

OR

"Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi"

Pick one.

Quite frankly, I'd rather they picked someone other than Pelosi anyway (she sort of sucks, plus she's profoundly creepy), but yeah, Democratic control of the agenda is important, so I concede the point.

[kmc]

We ought to be mindful, though, that a majority won with the Fords of the world means 1) a talking point among Republicans about dissention within Democratic ranks and 2) the possibility of a Zell Miller deal later on.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Because Pelosi is SO progressive:

Pelosi's First Dive
by David Corn

It didn't take long.

That is, for Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, to run for cover. Days after her colleagues selected her to replace Dick "I'm Outta Here" Gephardt, Pelosi appeared on Meet The Press. Out of the box, Russert asked her about recent news reports on the increasing threat posed by a resurgent al Qaeda. Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, confirmed the "threat is real" and added, "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the President in the fight against terrorism." Is a new attack inevitable? Russert wondered. "That certainly is a possibility," she replied, and added, "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the president."

Clearly, she had inherited page one from Gephardt's playbook: regarding terrorism, handcuff yourself to Bush. Russert asked if Pelosi supported the policy of monitoring Iraqis who are in the United States. She did not answer directly, and Russert, in his way, kept pushing. She remarked she was not familiar with the details of this particular initiative, but asserted, "I stand with the president in rooting out terrorism."

Russert turned to the subject of war in Iraq. He noted that Pelosi, who had voted against authorizing Bush to launch a war against Iraq whenever he wants, had said in September, "I have not seen the intelligence to justify the action that the president is suggesting....What is the threat that [Saddam] poses to the United States?" Russert then queried her, "Do you think that the situation with Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism?"

Her reply: "I don't think its a distr--I mean, any decision--I don't question a decision of the president of the United States on his timing or on the priority he gives a threat." But wasn't that precisely what she had done in the remark Russert had quoted? And hadn't she taken issue with Bush's priorities by voting against the resolution? If she believed there was no justification for action against Saddam, then she would have to consider a war against Saddam as something of a distraction. On national television, she was undressing politically--and undermining her previous stand and the arguments of fellow Democrats who had joined with her in opposing the it's-up-to-Bush war legislation.

Pelosi caved further. Russert asked what she would do if Bush declared that Saddam was thwarting inspections and ordered military action without consulting the United Nations. "If our young people are called to duty, certainly we'll support the action of the president," Pelosi answered. "I hope that it does not come to that." She commented that she preferred the conflict be resolved "diplomatically rather than just showing our power by going in militarily."

Had she given Bush a go-to-war-free card by signaling that she and other Democrats would not stand in the way should Bush decide to attack Iraq without support from allies? Russert tightened the knot: "But if the president decides to go unilaterally or with the British and the Turks without UN approval, you would support the president?"

"Yes, I would support the president," Pelosi replied. At least, she dropped the bit about standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the guy. But where was the intellectual honesty? If, in her mind, the case has not been made that Saddam is a threat to the United States, why back a unilateral move? And why permit Bush--whose credibility she had previously challenged--to make the call on his own? Moments earlier, Pelosi had noted she fears a US strike against Iraq will have negative consequences for the war on terrorism. Consequently, in the event Bush does order such a war, it should be incumbent upon Pelosi, as someone whose job it is to protect Americans, to argue that a misguided action is under way. That, of course, would be a challenge, for extensive pro-war sentiment usually accompanies the initiation of military action. But with the position she has adopted, Pelosi doesn't have to fret in advance about being rolled. Instead, she is ready to salute.

Here is the Pelosi position: I'll argue with Bush over this life-and-death matter, but I won't criticize him if he makes a wrong decision that I believe imperils the nation, in fact, I'll endorse it. This is the sort of opposition that a president need not worry about.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

And before anyone get's their undies in a wad, I want a TRUE left wing party and not some watered down version for the slightly left of conservative press.

I get a smile when people like Rush and Coulter talk about a "democratic kook base" because I'm sitting back thinking, "those bastards aren't kooky or crazy ENOUGH".

[Mary]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

And before anyone get's their undies in a wad, I want a TRUE left wing party and not some watered down version for the slightly left of conservative press.

I get a smile when people like Rush and Coulter talk about a "democratic kook base" because I'm sitting back thinking, "those bastards aren't kooky or crazy ENOUGH".

Can't disagree with any of this... but the Reupblican agenda right now is just soooooo fucking scary to me that I'm ready to make a deal with the devil just to put the brakes on this thing. It breaks my heart but I really feel like the most important thing in the short run in the 2006 electons is getting the Republicans out of control of congress. But there's definitely some serious housecleaning the dems need to do on their own... in fact, never mind the dems, I yearn for the days when I could vote green without worrying it meant that my country was going to start a world war in the Middle East....

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I'm torn.......but I will probably vote for Dems for the Congressional elections that are up for 06 here in Texas. I absolutely refuse to vote for anyone but Kinky Friedman in the Govenor's race. Everyone else in the race is just equally scary on just different things. I also think if there are any hopes for Unions in this Drakonian state I live in, it's got to be Kinky.

The fact that Willie Nelson has endorsed him though pretty much secures his defeat. Willie's approval seems to be the kiss of death.