I would like to take time out of my day to thank all the capitulating/ DLC/ Bush Blue dogs who went against over 70-80 % of democratic voters that did not want telecommunitcation immunity and voted against cloture and voted for immunity.
My question is what did they receive? What did the telecommunication pac give to OUR representatives to make them go against their constiuents and vote like rethuglicans?
I have read that the Telepacs held a “fundraiser” (that’s what the kids are calling it these days) for Senator Rockefeller and raised $40,000.00 for him. Then lo and behold, he was for telecomm immunity. So what did all the others receive that made them think that the Telecomm corporations should not be held responsible for trampling over the a pesky thing like the constitution?
It’s come to the point that it is time to replace all of the Senators no matter how they vote. It is time to “throw out the baby with the bath water”. It’s time to stop listening to their excuses by saying “Well, I voted for such and such, but the other’s didn’t.” It is time for us to say that if you couldn’t convince them to do the right thing then you are not the leader you said you are and we will find someone else. Not one Senator or Representative should be running unapposed in any primary. Maybe then they will see that that the position they were elected to was a job and not something they were entitled to.
I support
Ed O’Reilly, Democrat for U.S. Senate
Actblue and go US Senate, MA and please donate to Ed O’Reilly if you are so inclined.
Rethuglican is really original. You’re a funny little Demobrat. Avoiding name calling makes you more believable…
<
p>…And also, joining BMG and posting exclusivly on Ed O’Reilly and not commenting on any other threads makes you seem like a plant, so maybe you should either grow some opinions.
You ask why the “capitulating/DLC/ Bush Blue dogs” voted as they did.* You posit that it is a matter of campaign contributions.
<
p>However, the best explanation I’ve heard is that the Republicans are great at crafting attack ads and running them against their opponents. Anyone voting right on FISA is facing the possibility of some high quality, fear mongering ad running round the clock in his or her district.
<
p>The problem, therefore, is institutional. Democrats tend to produce crappy ads. We don’t have many groups with lots of bucks like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic] or the Club for Growth. The result is that voting wrong on fear-inducing issues like this induces a huge cost. We don’t have Senator Johnson’s back (D-SD).
<
p>Democrats institutionally avoid politicizing issues like this. But that’s the only way to win on them. One has to have the DNC acting like a might Wurlitzer pumping out our messages and explanations. If that fails to happen, the Republican narrative dominates the air time and everyone wonders why the Democrats won’t protecting America. Opposition to this horror takes longer to explain than the knuckle-dragging, made-for-TV explanations Bush offers. So if we don’t do it, we lose it.
Re: Ed Reilly: As I asked on my diary, what would an unKerry do differently?
<
p>
*That’s a hair inaccurate since the Bush dogs are all in the House and the DLC shrinks daily.