[The Tower]

Originally Posted by dissention

She expressed disappointment over Byrd's vote, which is completely asinine when you look at the man who is casting the vote.

Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.

The fact that she expressed disappointment over this man's vote, the vote of a man who is up for re-election soon and isn't going to risk being vilified any more by the Republican party that is on the hunt for Dems in his very state, tells me that she's living in a different reality when it comes to the Democrats. End of story.

She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive and not very pragmatic.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course I'd rather see Kerry. That goes without saying. But I want people to look at the current Democratic party and tell me with a straight face that they're upholding liberal views, principles, and issues. They are not.

I think you're painting this picture with a very broad brush. For every Republican-in-Democrat's-clothes you can name, I can name a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. To make the assumption that the Democratic party is automatically far-left is naive.

It's disingenuous to even say anything along the lines of "condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive" because the simple fact is that it's not a few things here and there that they're aren't stringent on, it's 99 percent of things.

I don't think that's true.

Everything that Bush has done while in office has been done with approval and complicity from the Democrats. To say otherwise is idiotic.

Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.

So, my question is why people still support that party so ferociously when they simply have no ground to stand on.

Just because Dubya stole the election is no reason for you to give up.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.

Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.