Their strategy is to try to wait out the remainder of the term and try to blame Republicans.

Their principle is to win at all costs.

This brings to my mind Michael Scherer's Salon piece about YearlyKos. Something about this Kos/netroots thing sort of creeps me out, and I think it is the sense of watching a political cult acting out to punish those violate Party discipline, in the Stalinist cell sense. This in particular bothered me:

The only candidate who was booed louder than Clinton at Saturday's presidential debate was the unlikely left-winger Dennis Kucinich. He made the mistake of aping one-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who regularly attacked the Democratic leadership as a bunch of sellouts. "Why don't people vote?" Kucinich asked, rhetorically. "It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties."

The booing immediately drowned Kucinich out. He had committed a cardinal sin, demeaning the Democratic Party before a crowd that works countless unpaid hours a week to make the party stronger. He had also provided, inadvertently, another reason for Clinton to smile. The YearlyKos community may not be her most natural constituency, but it is also unlikely to be her enemy. All she has to do is keep showing it respect.

Orthodoxy and group-think suck.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/06/yearlykos/?source=newsletter

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh.

I'm sorry, but that is complete twaddle. Now, I'm not a Democrat, but I did vote that party in the mid-terms, and I did so P*R*E*C*I*S*E*L*Y to end the lawlessness of the Bush Executive, to vouchsafe civil liberties, repeal the MCA, get us out of Iraq and keep us out of Iran, & etc. I did NOT vote for them so they can protect their electoral chances in '08. (And don't believe that hardball maneuvering by Pelosi and Reid re: the FISA bill would have impacted the '08 elections anyway, except perhaps positively.)

If the Democrat majorities are only about making sure they keep playing in Peoria forever and ever, amen -- and I imagine Peoria's parents don't want their sons and daughters sent to Iran, either -- then you can count me out. I don't give a damn what the party label is; if the results of voting for Democrats do not yield sufficiently more protection of core civil liberties and preventing/ending wars, then screw 'em.

I mean, really, what is the matter with you? We have a murderous mess going on in Iraq with another in Iran on the horizon, and your govt may now legally intercept anything you email to anyone in another country (and I email as well as converse by telephone with several people in a number of foreign nations, all of whom are vocally anti-Bush -- I am NOT liking this one bit). But you don't think Nancy and Harry should play the procedural cards they have in order to fight the Republicans on these trifling issues?

Whatever.

All the ranting about Blue Dog Democrats & etc, and vows to make sure "progressives" start winning instead, are just so much spitting against the wind. On and off over the years I've lived in Indiana. The likelihood that that state is going to elect lots of Democrats who favor gun control, and none who are pro-life and/or hold to a variety of other "conservative" positions, is less than zero. And yes, apparently a lot of them will vote for things like this FISA obscenity. If, however, the goal is to make sure Speaker Pelosi *is* such, one is going to accept that sort of Democrat from any number of areas in the nation. But in the meantime, Madame Speaker must do her job.

I don't know about Indiana as an example, but to flat out say that replacing or running progressives or liberals over so called Democratic candidates or office holders who will vote Republican is "spitting in the wind" is flat denial or ignorance.

You're right, you don't know Indiana.

Issues such as gun control and abortion, as important as they are and as passionate as many people rightfully feel about them, are simply NOT comparable to core issues such as torture, civil liberties and the constitution itself. Many of us reluctantly supported pro-life candidates such as Bob Casey, since they were almost certainly going to be better than knuckle-draggers such as Santorum. But we drew and draw the line on these core issues, which are simply NOT negotiable, EVER.

It doesn't matter a tinker's damn where either you or I draw lines. In Elkhart, Indiana folks are not sitting at the local Dunkin' Donuts today pissing about how awful it is that Congress just allowed the government to intercept their electronic communications made to persons in foreign nations. They do care about Iraq -- and their guns, and some are fiercely pro-life. Many may well want universal health care instituted. But they don't generally understand what is important about issues like the NSA/FISA matter, and are not going to be voting about such issues. Or, to the extent they do understand these issues, they either may not see much wrong with the changes to FISA, or their opposition is not very deep.

Elkhart is not Oakland or NYC.