In Order to Have A 2 Party System, You Need 2 Parties...

I have lived in Maryland (born at Fort Meade), or in the Washington DC area, most of my life, but mostly in Maryland. Senator Mikulski is NOT a "blue dog" Democrat, Senator Cardin while new to the Senate, did serve in the House of Representatives and DID VOTE AGAINST the Iraq invasion authorization. Since he was a representative of a Baltimore-Annapolis district, I don't know too much about him other than what I researched to make an informed vote, but what I do know, he's not a "blue dog" either. During the primary, for me, it was between Mfume and him; but Mfume seemed too eager to be friendly with Bush, and I think he was responsible for the NAACP extending an invitation to Bush at its annual conference (the one where Bush tried to impress the audience by telling THEM the history/purpose of THEIR association). It's my premise that concillatory lean toward Bush led to the Mfume-Bond rif and it was not one I wanted to find out it was so by voting for Mfume. In the election, I KNEW Steele was a snake--I'd had benefit of personally witnessing that.

Rep. Hoyer I am ambivalent about. I don't think he's a "blue dog," but quite honestly there are times when I'd like to be represented by someone else. Looking at his voting record, he voted according to my wishes 90% of the time, but I think he favors businesses a little more than to my liking. INACCURATE INFORMATION EDITED OUT - See comment below.

In my opinion with Memorial Day upon them, the "evil" crew poised to strike, the limited period of the supplemental funding, and the minimum wage raise, veterans' care funds and Katrina victims fund, et.al. attached, I believe the three of them voting for it was a rational and adult thing to do.

Don't get me wrong...I would have liked to have seen the Democrats stand up and raise the appropriate finger and say ---- you, Bush, but it would be a narcisstic victory. Besides, the the previous timelines were just as non-binding as the benchmarks are in this new one.

I am of the mind if the Iraqis want us out, we should get out. Sen. Feingold and Rep. Kucinich have got it right. They are Democrats. I do believe we are morally obligated to Iraq and we need to be politically involved (I like the McGovern-Polk plan) and the Democrats are far more capable and emotionally intelligent to facilitate this.

I can't help but think that by heaping all our anger on the Democrats we too are being played by the Republicans and Bush and move farther away from ending the Iraqi occupation.

I offered similar sentiments (framed more as a rant and a vent) in a post at TPM Muckraker, and was curb-stomped by people who believed I should be more positive and stop criticizing the Democrats, or that I was really a concern troll.

I get their point, but you have to love it when you get trashed by your own for the heresy of saying I'm not sure here, but is our side not on its game, or what?

...and I agree with CeeCee that taking a cheap shot at Bush and his crew simply for the sound bite isn't enough. We need some serious action, some results-oriented resistance. And I do not believe Impeachment should be "off the table", Madam Speaker (like, she listens to me).

My intuition tells me that the Democratic party, in all its facets, is trying to position itself to widen its control of the House and Senate, and to put a Democratic (and honestly elected) President in the White House in 2008. They see this as a long game, and they're playing it very, very cautiously.

Unfortunately, this strategy means continuing to appear exactly as the Rethugs have painted us for two decades -- vacillating and indecisive -- when polls indicate the opposite: The American People want Leaders, with integrity and purpose. We should stop wondering how to lead, and simply Lead by the force of truth. It would be like water in the desert.

I raise a big claw and say, Here's one Lobster who believes Plans flow from Principles.

http://www.peaceandfreedom2008.org/leaflets/AntiWar_20070317_1.pdf

I am sorry. I should never had used information that I could not immediately source or reference, particularly if it discredits someone. I know better and I can’t apologize enough. The following is information showing how Hoyer and Cardin voted on business issues during the 108th ( 2003-2004) and 107th (2001-2002) Congresses as Maryland’s U.S. representatives. I include Sen. Mikulski and the rest of the Maryland US Reps. It came from a report produced by the National Federation of Independent Business and used to show the percentage of the time they favored business when 13 bills were up for a vote. The legislation involved limiting medical liability, tax cut provisions, capital gains and dividends, repeal of the estate tax, employee health insurance regulation, employee overtime, business banking, food labeling, advertising and selling, workplace safety and reporting, corporate taxes, and tort reform.

Gilchrest (R) 100%/100% (108/107)
Ruppersberger (D) 31%/not in office
Cardin (D) 15%/14%
Wynn (D) 46%/15%
Hoyer (D) 8%/0%
Bartlett (R) 92%/100%
Cummings (D) 8%/7%
Van Hollen (D) 8%/not in office
Mikulski (D) 0%/25%

And note there are the Republicans lockstepping again. Maybe if we used as much energy criticizing and challenging them as we do, and should, the Dems, the Dems would grow a stronger backbone and lead.

"Unfortunately, this strategy means continuing to appear exactly as the Rethugs have painted us for two decades -- vacillating and indecisive -- when polls indicate the opposite: The American People want Leaders, with integrity and purpose. We should stop wondering how to lead, and simply Lead by the force of truth. It would be like water in the desert."

Wholeheartedly.