Imagine if the Republicans did something like this every time an individual Republican politician decided to stick with his/her morals instead of following the approved party line. Said Republicans would probably back down and do the "right" thing, i.e. spiritual uplift through conformity and all that.

What if a courageous Democrat was punished in this way for doing something really progressive that wasn't in the party platform and wasn't necessarily supported by a majority of constituents. Like, say, pushing through a trans-inclusive ENDA.

The whole point of politicians is that they are elected to make decisions for us because it is unreasonable to expect all 300 million Americans to get together and make them for ourselves. By taking away a politicians' ability to make decisions for him or herself, rather than adhering to the party line, you are robbing them of their entire purpose. Why not just let the loudmouth bloggers make the laws? Sure, it sounds nice to be able to "punish" bad Democrats for supporting legislature we think they ought not to. But just imagine the implications of that kind of system.

It may make sense in this one case, but it's hardly a good precedent to set.

Her name is Jennifer 8. Lee? Seriously? I mean. Seriously? Dude.

In other news, Chinese is not my favorite ethnic food by a long shot. Chinese (or Chinese-American or whatever the crap it is) is only the favorite ethnic food of people who've never eaten real ethnic food. I prefer Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese food, personally.

Barack "Golden Boy" Obama is not above any other politician when it comes to using misinformation for his own benefit. That Somali photograph probably did not come from the Clinton staffers, and even if it did there's no reason to think that there was malicious intent behind it (Clinton has also been photographed wearing native garb in foreign countries, and frankly, John McCain is probably the only person who would be offended to see Obama in Somali clothing).

Yet here he uses it to paint Clinton as no better than the Republicans, when the sad reality is, both of them are sort of pathetic at this point.

As a member of a legally unprotected minority group in this country, you have no idea how much the prospect of a supposed "true, functional democracy" terrifies me. The government exists to protect people like me from the selfish whims of the majority, not just to be a slave to anyone with an opinion and a wallet.

I'm not saying I disagree with GG's basic principle here, or that I like telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping. But since the beginning of our country, the people have been better served and protected by politicians whose accountability came in election years, not from the oft-celebrated wisdom of the mob. You just have to look at the Civil Rights movement for proof of that. A handful of brave politicians broke with what their powerful, wealthy constituents wanted, and now we see them as heroes. Obviously the Democrats who support telecom amnesty and so on are not modern reincarnations of those people. But I fear for the future of our country when a politician's fear of political action groups overrides their ability to make legislative decisions independently.

I'm not really comfortable sharing that information with you, and certainly not the whole Salon world. Use your imagination: Look up all the minority groups that it is still legal to discriminate against and take your pick. It doesn't particularly matter, does it? Suffice it to say people like me are regularly beaten and sometimes murdered for being what we are. So you'll forgive me if I don't trust my government or my rights in the hands of the collective Joe Schmos on the street.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I agree with GG and you others on the issues of telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping. What I don't like is the implications for a system of government in which politicians are ultimately responsible not to their consciences and voters but to whatever PAC happens to have the most money and influence at the time.

Sorry, Obama, but next time you're in the Senate and have to make a decision that might get you crucified by your voters, we'll say you "got it right."

Clinton, a New York senator, made the decision that her voters wanted. Now, the American public regrets that decision and would like to blame the filthy politicians for supporting a war that it, too, supported.

Obama, an Illinois legislator at the time, didn't have to make any decision at all. (Though he has had plenty of opportunity to take a stand since then, and has failed to do so.)

He didn't get it right, he just had it easy.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

First of all, there's the Clinton speech when she (and the majority of both Republicans and Democrats) voted to authorize military force in Iraq if diplomacy failed. The fact that diplomacy failed is hardly her fault, but Bush's, thank you very much.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

Here is an article with some statistics about American support of the Iraq War in 2002. No specifics on New York, but do you really think New York would have been much different from the rest of the country?

I don't see why the US would need to adopt such a policy. The native population is actually decreasing slightly. We are not meeting the replenishment rate in terms of our own reproduction. The only reason our population continues to grow is because of immigration. Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.