4 Democrats voted to confirm Alito. Byrd, Conrad, Johnson and Nelson.

Good post - we do need to work to replace those who have voted for some HORRENDOUS bills though.  We must Lamont those Lieberman candidates.  

But good to know that not MOST but only SOME Senators, Congressmen, who are democrats need to be replaced (Not now, though - in 2008 - let's gain control of the House and Senate now.)

My State's  Senators are Arlen Spector(who's not uup for re-elect this year) and Rick Santorum.  Be fair to me and help us get rid of Ricky Satan.

Good post, Chris.

Progressives need to be fair to Democrats...

I'm liberal rather than progressive, but I say we have been fair to Democrats. Most need to be driven in the right direction like reluctant mules. The moment we stop slapping them on the ass they stop pulling.

Right on!

This "Dems always cave" meme is such a momentum killer, do these people want to win, or feel sorry for themselves?

I always point out a strong majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq war.  A narrow majority were wrong in the senate, but a very strong majority against in the house were against it.

And never repeat the false notion that it wouldn't matter, that Kerry or a Democratic majority would have been the same or some such nonsense.  The victories you point out were with only 45 democratic senators and a bunch of those from red states.

Even if we don't take the senate, 49 democrats will stop a lot more garbage than 45.  

Ned Lamont in the Senate would be like an illuminated warning sign to "bad" Democrats.

But he's got to win first.

And so do some of those "bad" Democrats if we want the power to slow down Bush.

And so do some of those "bad" Democrats if we want the power to slow down Bush.

It's a fact that Bush got more of what he wanted when those bad Democrats controlled the Senate from 2001-03 than he has from the current bad GOP Senate.

Keep slapping.

Excellent post Chris.

 I understand where you're coming from, Chris, and I've just become an agent of the local Democratic Party myself. It's funny how that influences your perspective -- I'm seeing some wonderful attributes in local candidates I thought I didn't like before.

 Anyway, I think most of us are well aware that the Democrats are on our side most of the time on issues. The problem is that some of us remember 1993-94 all too well -- Clinton had just gotten into the White House, we had strong Democratic majorities in both chambers, and we thought the sky was the limit. So what happened? The Republicans all united to derail us. They filibustered EVERYTHING. They blocked legislation, using all kinds of procedural tricks. They attacked Clinton daily. They bragged loudly about their obstructionism. They got their mugs on the media talkshows and cut Clinton NO slack. They were aggressive, even though they were badly outnumbered. And their reward was taking both houses of Congress in 1994.

 The Democrats have been in a similar situation under Bush, and while they've been ideologically OK over that time period, as you point out, their tactics have been monumentally ineffective.  It's not all their fault, given how awful our media has become, but the Dems still seem to think we're dealing with Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans on the other side of the aisle, and we just get frustrated that we've sunk to debating a right as basic and fundamental to Western civilization as habeas corpus and there's STILL not enough (public) fire in their bellies.

 And then there's the case of Barack Obama. A telegenic, articulate, intelligent man who should be one of the party's greatest assets. And he is, sometimes. But I cannot fathom how Obama, who's forever ponificating about how Democrats don't pay enough attention to "moral values", didn't stampede to the cameras on Day One and declare his unequivocal opposition to torture on moral grounds. Given his high credibility and popularity (he's one of the few Dems whom the media doesn't ridicule), he had enormous leverage here to re-orient the public debate...and he passed on a dynamite opportunity to put the Democratic Party on the high moral ground in the public-perception sweepstakes. He's been quiet. Noncommittal. About one of those MORAL issues that's supposedly his specialty. That's heartbreakingly frustrating, and that's what makes many of us so infuriated with the national Dems.

 I remain committed to the party and hope to use my Central Committee position to help produce more Russ Feingolds and fewer Joe Liebermans. But sometimes I need to vent, because I don't want another 2002, and I'm seeing too many parallels...

Here's what I think: Democrats are, like most thinking people I know, manic depressives.  We fly from "Let's do something about these horrible Republicans" to "that's it, I quit the party!" in 10 seconds flat.  There's also a learned helplessness that sets in during 6 years of pretty much uninterrupted one-party rule.  

We should be free to tell the Party leaders when we disagree and why.  But the scorched-earth tactic of "I give up, not one more dime" is just short-sighted.  This post and Kos' about the long-term nature of this struggle are spot on.

Excellent post. Thank you for writing this. I wish you would cross post it at DKOS.

I think you're right, Chris.

Dem supporters have to accept that, without electing Dems who are not liberals, they will never get a decent majority in either house.

Most likely, the most conservative Dem will be more liberal than the most liberal GOP.

But the marginal Dem rep or senators will be more conservative than the average of the party in the house in question.

More profitable, though, than lefty bellyaching about the usual suspects, would be an effort to encourage a redefinition of liberal. The problem with American politics as a whole is the corrupt influence of campaign contributions. Moderate is all too often a polite word for corporatist - and liberals can't escape the pressure of fundraising.

Was it, for instance, really necessary on constituency grounds for forty or so Dem reps to support the estate tax repeals?

Part of the problem is the insistence of some elements of the lefty sphere on choosing idols, whom, when they fail to reach the standards of perfection demanded of them, their former adulators denounce.

(Obama is a current fallen idol - being berated right now for his failure to play Joan of Arc on the detainee bill in threads all over DKos.)

Politics is an inherently sordid process through from which public good may come. (FDR was a prime example of a pol who wrought good through dirty pool.)

Not taking part is not an option. Third parties are not an option.

Nor is it realistic to think that the left can take over the Dem party. (That tent has got to encompass at least 218 reps and 50/51 senators.)

Let's face it, even if the Dems comfortably win both houses, nothing much legislatively is going to pass. And a Dem trifecta in 08 is unlikely to be able to work more than marginal improvements - fiddling about with Part D, rather than universal healthcare.

The big trouble is, as I see it, the short horizon of so many lefties. There is not the patience for the glacial change in the balance of power that the GOP enjoyed (or suffered through) over the period 1964-94.

Not that I think that the Dems will have to wait that long. But expectations over the medium term need to be held in check.

(Assuming that the Dems do win both houses in November, the GOP strategy will certainly include trying to prise off a number of the usual suspects to form ad hoc conservative coalitions.

Just totting up the numbers of Dem renegades in the votes you list, I make an average of 9.5 Dem senators voting against their party.

Now, for all the agenda control that a Senate majority party has (and it's nowhere near that of a House majority), to have a bench of perhaps 15 Dem senators for the minority leadership to draw on for shenanigans could do wonders for GOP morale at its lowest.)

This is a really good post.  It also points out why controlling the majority is so important.  If a majority of the party opposes these measures or nominations, they would never have seen the light of day in a House or Senate controlled by the Dems because the majority controls what gets to the floor.

This is has been a really tough week trying to weather this thing.  I think everyone deserves a "well done for holding it together."

It alll started over the past few days with many front-pagers on various blogs (MyDD, Kos, FDL) who were very critical of al Dems in preparation for what looked like a capitulation on this torture bill.  It felt to me like the front-pagers across the blogs had lost faith in the party leadership.   Then, today, in what seemed like a natural progresssion, there were a spate of diaries in the blogs that pretty much carried on that negative tone--in particular, one very big diary at kos.  Then, thankfully--a few hours ago--the front-pagers stepped up and started talking about staying positive, Kos, FDL, not MyDD.

I feel like it's been really had for the readers and the front-pagers of the blogs to get in sync on this one--but we did it. Personally, I've hard a had time fluctuating between what I know we need to do (stay focused on Nov 7) and what I feel I want to do (throw a brick at the party leadership for taking so long to step up and be vocal on the is torture bill).

I can see, now, that we are settling into a strategy of contextualizing our emotions with pragmatism, but it was tough--really tough.  

So, I give everyone credit for fending off this Rovian tactic and generally keeping our heads over the past few days--front-pagers, readers...the whole shebang.

Well done, everyone.  Especially the front-pagers for some very agile shuttle diplomacy back and forth.

You watch, Chris.

Ford and sherrod brown voted for torture - 2 incoming progressives/.....

 ...have the Democrats considered filibustering on the grounds that U.S. citizens are being stripped of habeas corpus?

 Middle America doesn't care about aliens' rights, but when the discussion seeps over to citizens, I'd venture that MOST Americans, even in red states, would start to think twice about the implications of this bill.

 Has this thought grazed Harry Reid's brow? I mean, just the idea of standing up for an 800-year bulwark of Western civilization on the basis of the quaint idea of "principle" might not fly these days, but there's a good political exit strategy available if they want it...

Chris Bowers wrote,

 Progressives need to be fair to Democrats, the majority of whom have come to side with progressives on virtually everything. Don't blame Democrats in general for rolling over to Republicans--blame the minority who regularly do that, and name their names.

OK, I'll name names. Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), a self-identified Lieberman Democrat, is one of those blue dogs who vote with Republicans on legislation such as the Bankruptcy Bill (which Case actually co-sponsored.) He decided to challenge Sen. Akaka (D-HI) this year for the Senate, and after mounting a noisy challenge, on the theme of "Transition," got thumped by the progressive Akaka 55% - 45% in the primary. Now his House seat is open; more than 10 people ran for it in the primary, mostly progressive Democrats, and the winner (with about 25% of the vote) was Mazie Hirono, who is much more progressive than Case, and bears Patsy Mink's mantle. Hawaii Progressives have marked Case's votes on the issues you cited, and have paid attention. The results may be one of the most progressive congressional delegations in the country.

Interestingly, Akaka, one of the most progressive Senators in congress, was strongly supported by Sen. Inouye (D-HI), who after November may become the most conservative Democrat in our congressional delegation. Like Akaka, he is in his 80s, but he doesn't sound interested in retiring any time soon.

Bob in HI

I live in Ohio and I am appalled that Sherrod Brown voted for the Torture Bill. I'm beside myself. I'm also completely mystified and feel totally betrayed.

Brown was never exciting, but he was reliably progressive. This vote is completely out of left field and it is on one of the arguably most significant votes a legislator in America could face.

He has chosen to support torture, presumably because he either thinks it is acceptable, or thinks it will somehow help him beat DeWine. But he has now lost me. This is a really, really low moment.

I expected the low moment to be when DeWine magically "squeaked out" a surprise victory, courtesy of Ken Blackwell and his bag of tricks. And I would have been both shattered and furious. Now I'm furious at Brown.

There are betrayals and then there are betrayals. This is a clear-cut moral issue, in a world of grey shades.

I will be calling Brown's office tomorow to inform him that he has lost my vote. No more money from me, no volunteering, no positive words, no support of any kind. I won't vote for any of the candidates for Senate - I'll vote for other Democrats on the ticket for other offices, but Brown has lost me.

And I will cry all night.

Two quick points -- My rep, Jane Harman, sure seems to have cleaned up her act after the primary challange by Marcy Winograd. Even an unsuccessful challange can be a help in the House since two years isn't that long a time if they don't reform their ways.

The only time I have ever voted for a Republican in my life was when I lived in Eastern Iowa 20-30 years ago and Leach was my rep. It seems whenevery I check the roll call vote on an important subject I see his name in the correct column. I'm sure he's made many more votes I wouldn't agree with but I'm not ashamed to say I voted for him 25 years ago.

I lied -- a third point. Any Dem who voted or votes for this bill will never get my support for any office. I am not a single issue person but this is greater than that. I told that to my Senators (Feinstein & Boxer -- but I don't need to tell you that :) ) exactly that in no uncertain terms. And if anybody currently in the Senate expects my support for a Presidential run my first question will be "how did you vote on torture?"

Aren't you guilty of just what you accuse "progressives" of? I am outraged by the Dems who voted for torture. I am outraged by their corrupt and unprincipled Senate leadership. That's not all Democrats. But it's what now publicly represents The Democratic Party.

As fwaltman notes, we need to get them to clean up their acts, not give them a pass. We do too much of that, not too little.

This is a very important post.  I only hope those who need to hear it actually listen.

I don't know about this. I understand the reason -- and need -- for optimism. But 25-18 on the bankruptcy bill and 26-18 against on the class action bill really make me grit my teeth. No, more than that: they damage my respect for the Democratic Party. Sure, more Democratic senators voted against these bills than for them. But where was the leadership? I'll tell you, they were in the Capitol toilet stalls, jerking off. They should have been out there rallying the troops against two of the most despicable pieces of legislation ever. Does the Democratic Party -- not just its "progressive" wing -- stand for anything on the most important issues?

Sorry for being so crass, but this stuff really burns me up. It's why I got into MyDD in the first place. We're realists here. We know that the only way to effect real change is to change the Democratic Party from within. Yes, we'll put our money on the Dems, not on the Greens. And yes, I'll vote Democratic and encourage all of my friends to as well. But I'll tell you one thing. I won't be a frigging cheerleader. Not until our movement candidates are in charge.

Thank you Chris! Jeez.