Democrat libre by Digby - Worth reading even if it is not about Kerry

[Mass]

Reading my favorite blogs this morning, I found two references to Digby's post: " Democrat libre" and how it is important to be partisan these days and support Democrats, without consideration on whether they are too liberal or too conservative to your taste. We need Democrats in the Senate and the House to push our agenda and we cannot count on the moderate Republicans to help. When it will matter, they will vote with the GOP. No time either to help Republicans look moderate because they co-sponsor bills with you on important subjects, particularly when the Republican is called McCain.

So read and comment.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_digbysblog_archive.html#114048470214208877

It's not "left" and "right" or "liberal," "moderate," or "conservative" that animates the grassroots. We argue some amongst ourselves on policy, of course, but that's not the rap on the establishment. It's the desire that our representatives wake up and recognise that we are in a new political era in which these designations take second place to "Democrat." That's the environment we are in whether we like it or not --- a country sharply divided by party, not ideology.

And while you are at it, read the two blogs where I originally read the comment.

http://toughenough.org/2006/02/for-about-zillionth-time.html

I can't imagine anyone saying it any better. I would only quibble with his use of the word "all" - I believe there are a few leaders who Get It. I think Kerry does, and Kennedy and Boxer, and maybe Feingold, though I'm not certain. Durbin would have been on the list up until his recent and inexplicable capitulation on the Patriot Act.

http://upper-left.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_upper-left_archive.html#114054706237938710

And there it is. These are Yellow Dog days. It's straight ticket time. There's just no room for high-minded votes for the 'person, not the party.' This is no time for 'progressive independents.'

The government is organized on party lines, not positions or principles. The fabled 'moderate Republicans' are never there when we need them, but even the most conservative Democrat is with us for the leadership elections.

Democrats, please. Without prefix. Without suffix. Without apology.

[ProSense]

1. This sums it up nicely also

Whats the Difference Between a Moderate Republican and a Republican?

Two disturbing, but not unexpected items in the New York Times today. First, on the front page, above the fold, in their analsyis section, Adam Litak notes "Alito May be...

Two disturbing, but not unexpected items in the New York Times today.

First, on the front page, above the fold, in their analsyis section, Adam Litak notes "Alito May be in the Mold of Scalia and Thomas." After reviewing the hearings, my reaction is, of course he is. That is why Bush picked him. He has been catering to the far right since he took office. Is there any doubt that a president who would lie about war and spy on U.S. citizens without warrants, would do everything within his ability to enhance his own power and limit the rights of ordinary Americans?

Second, an editiorial entitled "Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito" that observes the hypocrisy of these supposedly pro-choice Republicans who seem not to be doing anything to block the nomination of the most serious threat to Roe v. Wade since Robert Bork. Its fine to say your pro choice and defend a woman's riight to choose, but now that the moment of truth has come, these "pro-choice Republicans" -- in the Senate and House -- appear to be AWOL.

So, what is the difference between a moderate Republican and a Republican? Nothing, and America will be paying the price for it.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000351.htm

[Mass]

2. Excellent.

[whometense]

3. Thanks, Mass!

And reading what ProSense had to say made me realize I should have added Conyers to the list; though I was thinking senators when I wrote that, he has put himself on the line over and over again.

That Digby post was just wonderful.