Yup, I know what you mean. We are electing Dems who don't share the base of the party's values. Like unions. How many Dems deserted us on Nafta and Cafta? Because we don't hold their feet to the fire.
The flip side is someone like McCain, who I have met. He's an ardent free-trader (whatever that means) and is pro-life and anti-gay. However, if he wasn't interested in national office and didn't represent Arizona, something tells me he'd be more moderate on those social issues. Same thing with Lindsey Graham.
Republicans are united because: a) they have purged the moderates and liberals from their party, and b) the ones who are moderates in their hearts vote conservative to avoid being taken to the woodshed.
Since we Dems are always open-minded and eschew retribution and single-mindedness, I do not have an answer for this dilemma.
If you're talking about elected officials who happen to be Democrats, I agree with you. The problem is, there IS NO Democratic Party...at least in basic terms. That's the problem. There's no ONE group of activists that Democratic elected officials listen to, or feel they need to listen to. There is no liberal group that is powerful enough to intimidate them.
However, there are SEVERAL groups on the Right that elected Republican officials are afraid of pissing off, starting with the conservatives within the Republican Party itself, not even to mention the plethora of intimidating groups like Right to Life and the NRA.
and I'm willing to donate again right away. But funds are limited and by the time he announces, McCaskill, Casey, or someone else may have gotten my money instead. Timing is important, that is all I'm saying. Strike those eight-thousand donors while the iron is still hot.
Prediction: If Mark Warner runs in VA, McCaskill and Hackett run, and Pederson runs a good race in AZ, we get control of the Senate.
2006 is shaping up to be the perfect storm for Democrats: gas prices, Iraq, second midterms under an unpopular president. These candidates need to realize that the climate will be great for Dems in 06. We don't know how it's going to be in 2008. With this political climate, McCaskill needs to run for the Senate. I hope it is true that she's running.
The war is less divisive on the Democratic side than most people think. Most people assume that no Democratic president would have gone into Iraq, no matter who that President was. Though many Democrats did vote to authorize the use of force. This is evidenced by the 94% Kerry number from 2004.
Though Hillary voted for the authorization, no one seriously believes we would be in Iraq right now if she, or any other Democrat, had been the president.