Serves Mary Landrieu right, instead of embracing

[HoosierRadical]

a progressive agenda, she tries to out GOP her GOP opponent. Start packing up your office Senator, although right wingers are detestable, and will do great harm to this nation, Democrats like Landrieu are not worth the angst and anxiety they create every election. Now we can start running true progressives.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Pack her bags and in moves Cassidy, a radical RW TP republican, who sponsored the bill in the House.

Now for the Civil Rights issues Landrieu fought hard over the years, bet he isn't going to work for Civil Rights.

[HoosierRadical]

3. He won't support Civil Rights,

and that disturbs me, but, Landrieu is not worth the trouble.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Okay, don't think getting another TP member in the Senate will be worth it either.

She got what she wanted, she got the vote, Obama was going to veto the bill and if there was not enough to override the veto and it would have been dead but sometimes we can not see the forest for the trees.

[BlueJazz]

2. I watched her on the news tonight and from what I've seen of her in the past,...

...I'm starting to wonder if her act is really an act. I don't see her winning. She's seems to be trying too hard and looks desperate.

[HoosierRadical]

5. trying too hard to hold on to her seat?

One would think she was more politically astute to know better, what she needed to do was to motivate the base, and the base knows that pipeline is bs. She should have pick another strategy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. I don't even care if we get a progressive to run next cycle,

as long as they're someone who can at least be trusted not to water down Dem legislation and demand it be made worse before they'll vote for it.

The ACA could have been so much better without Landrieu and Lieberman working to undercut the Dem caucus.

[HoosierRadical]

6. Than that is why you SHOULD care if a progressive is elected.

who other than a progressive is going to stand on principle of what is socially and economically just?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Even though I use the word 'principle' myself, I actually don't think of such things as

'standing on principle', but actually simply being the smart things to do in the interests of society over the long term. People who 'don't stand on principle' still have principles, they just place more value on their own power, economic wellbeing, or illogical or shortsighted beliefs.

There's no value on 'standing on principle' for 'principle's sake'. You're doing it because it's actually the smart and correct thing to do. It's a good idea not to risk polluting massive aquifers, especially when you're moving into a period when droughts are going to become more prevalent over parts of the country. Ditto having a public option that takes the 'profit motive' out of healthcare expenses and removes some middleman bloat that doesn't do anything to actually provide healthcare. It's not really about ideology or principle, it's about sitting down and working out what works best overall, for decades to come, not just 'this quarter'.

[HoosierRadical]

9. What you described is what I label

"standing on principle".

[Demeter]

10. You are talking like an Engineer!

I can grok that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. My masters was in systems analysis.

And I worked as a software engineer/DBA for over a decade. The rest of my degrees were a mix of pure and applied sciences.

I'm all about things that work and improve society, first and foremost. The problem with conservatism in my book is simply that it attempts to impose a static framework on a dynamic system. Things are always changing, and you need to be willing to try new things to change along with them, not constantly try to return back to some mythical 'City on a Hill'. Especially when the past only really was good for a very few people, and sucked for most others.