Obama and majority of Democratic Party shred Constitution: 4th Amendment now null & void

Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill
Associated Press

Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

We have now moved from a de facto police state, to a de jure police state.

Obama, now that he has the nomination, felt it safe to betray us in order to show his loyalty to corporate America and to pander to the imaginary Bush supporters who he thinks will vote for him.

Other Democratic traitors who chose to nullify the 4th Amendment:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

The Republic is no more.

Comments

Thanks for this reminder, Kosh...

Having been one of those undecideds, who did vote for Hillary in the primary, I now know my instincts were somewhat correct. On an issue that was very important to many of us 'constitution' believers, Obama backed away, and voted with McSame. His leadership has been dismal, but his principles leaves us to wonder. The apologists will be out in full for the next week or so, to play this down!

I can't say I was enthusiastic for either one

But since the corporate media were not going to allow Edwards or Kucinich to win, it was always the choice between two right-wing Dems.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I am disappointed in the vote.

More than disappointed.

I am confused, and want to have one question answered.

WHY?

If it's in order to bring criminal prosecution later, fine. But if it's for expediency? I'm quite saddened.

Can we, instead, start talking about "for the good of North Carolina?" --Leslie H.
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Two possible answers

1) A sell out to the Telcos in order to soften corporate opposition to him.

2) He has started listening to the same asshole DLC consultants that have been losing us elections since 1994.

It was a cynical decision in the extreme. After winning the nomination, he no longer "needed" us. Since he is now the only game in town, he knew he could ignore us with little chance of losing votes.

Realistically, his move right gave him nothing. And while it did not cost him many votes on the left, it has cost him some, which could make the difference in swing states.

What he lost, which he doesn't appreciate, is folks like me who will vote for him, but will give him neither money or time. When the attack ads start, he's on his own. His new friends at AT&T can give him money and foot soldiers.

Hagan is playing a similar game, but she is in a more precarious position. Despite claiming she would reach out out to the voters who went for Neal, three months have gone by and we are still being ignored. She thinks she can win without us, but unlike Obama, she is not leading Dole by double digits. She needs us, but her consultants tell her she doesn't.

Apparently Hagan only reaches out to Republicans. Liberal Democrats can go screw themselves.

Obama may have a plan that after he is elected ("if he is elected" is no longer an operational concept to him) he'll make some effort to undo this vote, then claim that he this was his plan all along. There will be lots of theatre, but no real effort, and he then hopes the whole matter will be forgotten.

I will never forget. I will never trust him again.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

This is not true, Kosh

Despite claiming she would reach out out to the voters who went for Neal, three months have gone by and we are still being ignored.

She posted a diary here after the primary, and it caused a raging battle that seriously damaged some of the relationships here. And I can assure you that not everybody is being ignored.

I sure would like to see some of your anger directed at the GOP for a change.

Uh, no...

In her May 8th diary:

After my press conference on Tuesday evening, Mark Binker from the Greensboro News & Record asked me what I was planning to do to get the support of folks which may have supported my opponents, specifically Jim Neal. I'll tell you what I told him -- I'm going to talk to you and meet you and ask for your support. Regardless of anything else, the one thing I KNOW we can agree on is our commitment to defeating Elizabeth Dole and bringing a real North Carolinian to Washington. I sincerely hope I can count on your support.

Number of blog entries since May 8th?

ZERO!

Number of meetings with BlueNC liberals?

ZERO!

I sure would like to see some of your anger directed at the GOP for a change.

It would be much easier to concentrate on the GOP if some people, supposedly on my side, were not always standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the GOP holding their hand and defending their left flank.

If Hagan was half as concerned about reaching out to us as she is about reaching out to the GOP, I'd be doing her laundry by now.

Our votes are "assumed", so there is no need to respect us, cultivate our support, or even ask for our money.

Ms. Hagan is certainly free to prove me wrong (and I would welcome it).

Don't try to sell me rat turds and tell me it they're capers.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Walked with her at July 4th parade

She reached out to the Mecklenburg Progressives and several of us walked with her during one of our local 4th of July parades. I had a chance to talk with her as did several other local activists and I found her very interested in our issues. I don't think she is assuming anything.

I enjoyed meeting her and have absolutly no qualms voting for her this November.

Wake Forest won't play us anymore
Michigan last year
LSU - you are next
Go ASU!

I'm really glad to hear you say that.

Or, rather - to read you write that. For some odd reason I've come to trust your judgement.

I'm hoping for a similar opportunity when she comes to our county for a rally on August 9.

Can we, instead, start talking about "for the good of North Carolina?" --Leslie H.
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Wonderful!

And what did the "reaching out" to the Mecklenburg progressives entail? What did she say? It would seem in her interests to keep us apprised of her activities, but not a peep since May 8th.

Any word when she'll meet with Pam Spaulding and answer the question she has avoided answering so far?

I don't see this happening because she thought she was being clever with her initial response to gay marriage (let the states decide). Trouble was, Pam pointed out Loving vs. Virgina, in which the state of Virgina declared interracial marriage illegal (later overturned by the Supreme Court). Since Hagan had just said that it is up to the states to decide who can legally marry whom, Pam asked her to clarify whether Hagan was now endorsing Loving vs. Virginia, a blatantly racist decision.

Hagan's choices are:

1) Admit she is afraid to endorse gay marriage, so she won't, and is thus prepared to allow homophobes to decide the issue.

2) State that upon looking at the issue as Pam explained it, she certainly can't endorse racism, so she is now endorsing gay marriage.

3) Admit that while she objects to racism and homophobia, she is prepared to allow racist and homophobic laws to be enacted by the states, and hopes the Supreme Court will "do the right thing" since she and the states won't.

4) State that the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving vs. Virgina, and that neither interracial couples, nor gay couples should marry.

Since she lacks the courage to take any of these stands, she is avoiding meeting with Pam, or the other liberals at BlueNC.

Sorry, I am still skeptical.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

If Hagan were to come out in

If Hagan were to come out in support of gay marriage you could forget any chance of her closing that 10 point gap and expect it to grow to 20 points.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

So, we can only rely

on Hagan to stand for Democratic values if it won't cost her votes?

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Well the Democratic Party is

Well the Democratic Party is a big tent so not everyone's values or positions on issues can be expected to perfectly aleign. The "progressive position" most often advocated on NCBlue is only one of many.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

"Big tent"

means we are open to all sorts of views on solving economic, national defense, foreign policy and environmental problems.

Basic civil rights, however, are not open to negotiation. Either you believe gays and interracial couples can marry, or your don't.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

You do realize that the vast

You do realize that the vast majority of Democrats in NC would question your contention that gay marriage is a basic civil right don't you? I'm afraid if you are going to be a Democrat as well as a "progressive" or "liberal" you're going to have to willing to accept the fact that not everyone in the party is going to agree with you on this issue. My observations here are not intended to be confrontational so please don't take offense.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

Mindless bigotry, a lie, that's extreme. I understand that you are passionate about the issue but taking that approach will most likely be counterproductive to your goal.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

No, that is the truth

and the truth is always "extreme" to some folks.

And 40 years ago, people made the same argument that calling the mindless bigotry and lies blacks were subjected to was "harsh", "unfair" and counter-productive". 150+ years ago, abolitionists who called slavery "vile", "sinful", "degrading", "an abomination against God" and many similar things were called "inflammatory" "radical" and "divisive". They were accused of "coarsening" the discourse.

Bigots have lots of defenses for their critics. They wish to hold onto their bigotry at all costs, but never want to face the fact that they are bigots.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

So let me get this straight

if someone doesn't support an immediate adoption of gay marriage by the state of NC are you saying they are bigots?

I'm a moderate Democrat.

What's the most plausible explanation?

Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me. We've seen the world fail to end in a hail of Biblical destruction twice now, as Massachusetts and then California adopted gay marriage at the state level. (I could also offer the examples of Canada and Spain, but, as we all know, God roots and cares only for the U.S.A., so I recognize their irrelevance.)

If you can make a plausible case that North Carolina, unlike the foregoing heathen feifdoms, is truly God's Country, and that passing gay marriage here would result in the immediate destruction of all human life, then opposing immediate recognition of gay couples' right to wed might be rational.

When we are discussion issues of civil rights, we cannot suspend their implementation because some people find their exercise--by some people--as discomfiting or distasteful. Freedom of speech is worthless if it "protects" only the expression of conventional speech that no one would suppress anyway. The right to bear arms, recently and historically upheld by the Supreme Court, is without value as a deterrent to state aggression if the only people permitted to practice it are employees of the state. The right against self-incrimination is pointless if it can only be exercised by people who have never committed a crime.

Ockham's Razor slices the issue neatly for me--there are those who support gay marriage, right now and without reservation, and there are homophobic bigots. There is a third case: cowards who fear not opposing gay marriage because they believe they will be shunned by their friends, family, and/or co-workers if they express support for LGBT civil rights.

I'm willing to add nuance to this perspective, but it's going to take a closely-reasoned and strong argument, not a case from personal conviction that there's some damn good unarticulated reason for not moving forward with recognition of gay marriage rights immediately.

--
recently transplanted from Indianapolis, IN to Durham, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Hmmm... let me think about that for a moment...

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Yes.

It is that simple. The only reason for opposing gay marriage is on "religious" grounds, and as religion has a VERY poor track record on matters of public policy and civil rights, must we be forced to go through the same 40, 50 or 100+ year death march to prove these people are wrong?

And yes, this is about religion, as no rational person, who examines the science can possibly have any reason to oppose gay marriage, or gay adoption, or gay teachers, etc.

Who opposes gay marriage in NC? Why folks like the Southern Baptists. This would, of course, be the same Southern Baptists who finally got around to repudiating slavery in 1995!!!

So. let me me re-phrase your question, to one of another era, 143 years ago:

if someone doesn't support an immediate emancipation of slaves by the state of NC are you saying they are bigots?

Now, answer your own question.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

This is the kind of all or nothing, moral superiority line of reasoning I'm use to seeing from the far-right! It's interesting to see it from the far-left.

Since you like to use those Antibellum analogies I'll go along and remind you that abolitionists led by William Lloyd Garrison were immedatists. Using that approach, while noble, was also self rightous and counter productive. Where there once had been the free flow of ideas, spirited debate, the threat of the immediatist position resulted in a "circle the wagons" mentality. It turned the population of the slaveholding states into two camps, those that supported slavery at all costs and those that kept their mouths shut. How much better off we might have all been had all sides been willing to listen to each other and work through an end to slavery more like that of Great Britain rather that the blood chapter in our history that instead took place?

I'm a moderate Democrat.

Let me see if I understand correctly

Are you blaming abolitionists (i.e. the liberals of that day) for the Civil War?

(BTW, William Lloyd Garrison is a personal hero of mine).

Are you saying that in the face of grave injustice, one should allow such grave injustices to go on for years, maybe even decades, until the people propagating the injustice can be persuaded via "the free flow of ideas" and "spirited debate" to yield? Doing what is right must wait until such time that people of ignorance and evil can be persuaded to foresake their ignorance and mend their evil ways?

This argument sounds like the one being offered as to why we couldn't just get out of Vietnam, and why we have to stay in Iraq.

Demanding that we stop killing people (and getting our soldiers maimed and killed) immediately is a "noble" sentiment, but "self righteous and counter productive"?

If we had followed this tactic about slavery, we MIGHT have avoided the Civil War, but it would have taken another half century to end slavery, and that would have limited the deaths to just black people. Which I guess would have been OK with folks who don't believe we should rush into things which could get a lot of white people killed (and no, that is not a veiled reference to you. :))

Of course, given that time line, we would have delayed the progress of all the other achievements we've made in the last century and a half, you know like the Civil Rights Act of 1995...

It was certainly easier to end slavery in Britain peacefully, especially since the vast majority of the sick religiously insane people who believed that such depravity was sanctioned by God had been sent to America a few centuries earlier.

Yes, Garrison was unyielding, and a man far braver than any of the spineless cowards who currently hold office or run for it on the left. He had a price on his head in the South, and barely escaped being lynched after giving speeches against slavery. It is sad that we do not have a many people today who have Garrison's ethics, bravery and moral conviction:

With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.

He also directly addressed the view that people should "go slow" on the issue of emancipation.

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.

He also had something to say to people who believe it is forbidden to criticize your own party:

Little boldness is needed to assail the opinions and practices of notoriously wicked men; but to rebuke great and good men for their conduct, and to impeach their discernment, is the highest effort of moral courage.

Thanks for comparing me to Garrison, but why is it "self-righteous" to refuse to back down on civil rights (whether we are talking about gay marriage or illegal wiretapping)? Personally I am quite fed up with politicians telling me why they can do wrong things immediately, but must debate endlessly what is right.

Our country is the world, our countrymen all mankind. We love the land of our nativity, only as we love all other lands. The interests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us, than are those of the whole human race.

I claim to be a human rights man , and wherever there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that being, whatever may be the sex or the complexion. Our rights are equal, and whoever tramples on them is either a ruffian or a tyrant, unwilling that justice should reign in the world.

(Garrison was also ahead of his time on women's suffrage in this country AND England).

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

No

I'm not blaming the abolitionists for the American Civil War. It's a lot more complex than that. What I was saying was that by refusing to see any other position but your own and condemning anyone that doesn't wholeheartedly support your viewpoint you create an adversarial situation when you might well gain some support for your cause and advance it faster with a different approach.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful for everyone back in the early to mid 19th century if slavery could have been ended without the bloodshed of the American Civil War? If negotiations between the government and slaveholders could have been conducted and timetables worked out. Yes it would have saved about 650k lives and I don't think that's any small thing regardless of the color of their skin. It also would have prevented the total ruin of the economy of the Southern United States which would have meant so much of the poverty we continue to suffer from here, that effects the ancestors of slaves, slave owners, and those that never owned a slave in a very negative way, (ie poor schools, high infant mortality rate, poor health, lack of adequate health care, high illeteracy rates etc. etc.) could have been avoided. Gradual emancipation would have meant the freeman would have avoided being left free but with nothing in a land decimated by four years of war, no home, no skills, no job and at the bottom of the pecking order. So yes while I appreciate your passion and committment and I appreciate WLG's passion and committment I believe there was a better way then and now to achieve the ultimate goal.

What is ironic is that I believe in protecting the rights of all our citizens and am someone that tries to bring others around to the idea of acceptance of people with lifestyles that aren't that of the majority. I would like to see same sex partners able to get health care coverage, legal rights, etc. etc. But I'm also a realist and know that our citizens aren't ready to accept civil unions yet, much less gay marriage. An all or nothing approach is counter productive and may in fact set your objective back even further, especially if the issue is front and center in the campaign.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

People who disregard reality cannot be reasoned with

What I was saying was that by refusing to see any other position but your own and condemning anyone that doesn't wholeheartedly support your viewpoint you create an adversarial situation when you might well gain some support for your cause and advance it faster with a different approach.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful for everyone back in the early to mid 19th century if slavery could have been ended without the bloodshed of the American Civil War? If negotiations between the government and slaveholders could have been conducted and timetables worked out.

And exactly what "timetable" would have been acceptable?

OK guys, at the end of x years, you can be free. In the mean time, GET BACK TO WORK YOU LAZY DARKIES!

Your position seems to be that it would have been better that we kept slavery for x years more, than suffer the trauma of the Civil War. This is certainly perfectly reasonable, unless you had to be a slave for x more years. It is easy to barter other people freedoms away under the premise of "saving lives", especially when it is someone else's freedom.

In fact, that is what the Democrats have been helping the Republicans do since 9/11. Here we can see a prime example of your theory in practice. Both parties worked together, stripped the country of a few freedoms they told us no one would miss, unless your were a terrorist, a terrorist lover, or dark-skinned (which was the same thing as a terrorist or terrorist lover) and we have "avoided another 9/11"

Yippie! Another victory for bi-partisan compromise. Cake and cookies for everyone.

And all that compromise cost us was:

1 million+ dead and maimed Iraqis/Afghanis (and counting)
4100+ dead American soldiers (and counting)
28,000+ maimed Americans soldiers (and counting)
$1 trillion (and counting)
Our standing in the world
Our economy
The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments of the Constitution
Habeus Corpus
The rule of law

Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, our honor, integrity, and for the religious types, our very soul.

When politicians start using words like "pragmatic" and "realistic" you can bet that someone is getting it where the proctologists roam. I was lectured by politicians in Raleigh that it wasn't "realistic" to to require paper ballots, outlaw paperless voting, and require voting machine companies to subject themselves to criminal penalties if they lied about their software.

Yet, that's exactly what the law says today. Why? Because while we always were willing to work with "the opposition" on getting a bill passed that safeguarded voting integrity, we were NOT willing to compromise on those core issues. The reason we got away with such a stance was because:

1) We were absolutely resolute that the issues I outlined would be law.

2) We had cold, hard fact which we used to beat the opposition into submission. We NEVER allowed a lie to go unchallenged and we educated people with the truth at every opportunity.

There is certainly a time for discussion and compromise on issues, but that time expired long, long ago. The opposition is not made up of "reasonable" people, and there is NOTHING to be gained trying to reason with them. We have reached a point in American history were we have to take a stand for what is right. This is not a difference of "opinion", it is a matter of reality.

The GOP has won contest after contest because they have been absolutely inflexible and resolute. Instead of being equally tenacious, our side gives them what they want, and calls it "bi-partisan compromise". Even as the GOP heads toward a historic defeat, they continue to win. There is a clear line between "compromise" and "capitulation", and a very thin line between "capitulation" and "collaboration". Our leaders have crossed both lines, and built a house there.

We will be paying for these various compromises for decades, possibly centuries.

But I'm also a realist and know that our citizens aren't ready to accept civil unions yet, much less gay marriage.

They are unwilling to accept it because our politicians have refused to LEAD. They have refused to educate the public on WHY it is in the best interest of the country to do these things. Instead, they have played to prejudice, encouraged hatred, and elevated lies above truth.

Why?

To get re-elected.

The subtext of many Hagan defenders (in my opinion) is that Hagan DOES support gay marriage, but since she won't get elected if she admits this, she pretend not to support it. Once she is elected, she will change her stand and do what is right.

This is how twisted our morality has become. For the sake of "political realities" I am supposed to support a person who will lie about where they stand, in order to get them elected, so they will (supposedly) push my agenda when safely in office.

Gee, isn't that what Bush did? Convinced a lot of people that he was a moderate, so he could get elected and enact a literally fascist agenda?

And now we must use these same tactics? Why? Because the truth is unpalatable to some people so we have to lie to them, then betray them, then hope they forget the betrayal by the next election?

I sorry, but WHY would I want to vote for such a cynical, amoral/immoral person?

No, I have first hand experience that if you tell the truth, stand by the truth, and refuse to back down from the truth, you WILL prevail.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Interesting rebuttal

Regarding ending slavery without having to lose 650k men, ruin the economy of a whole region, and set up freedmen for generations of continued repression my point was that if the abolitionists hadn't taken the immediatist approach negotiations would have started much sooner and gradual emancipation could have possibly led to an end of slavery sooner than it did. The first logical step would have been for an end to perpetual or generational enslavement by declaring all babies born after a set date to be free. Dates would be set for the granting of freedom for adults and within a set number of years slavery would have ended.

As far as the eroding of the Bill of Right and the War in Iraq I've opposed both.

Regarding your all or nothing gay marriage position you don't seem to understand that there will be no Democratic politicians in office if they take it up. In short it just ain't going to happen because it's political suicide. It seems you would be happier being right (according to your definition) and having no influence than seek compromise and not get everything you want. What makes our government work is in fact the art of compromise. Call me all the names you want but in my opinion you are way off base.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

Conitnued at the bottom

This is getting too narrow.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Change

I think change is inevitable but the Democratic Party in NC is more or less a centrist party not a liberal one. Integration and overall racial equality has been achieved gradually and in fits and starts. People have to be brought along gradually. I believe the same will hold true when it comes to gay rights. I don't know about legal gay marriage happening in 15 years. Who knows, but one thing's for sure, NC will not be in the forefront of the movement. I do know that if gay marriage becomes a major issue in the 08 campaign it will be disasterous for the Democrats.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

Kay Hagan is the right choice

Kosh,Linda and others,

You can say all that you want about Kay Hagan not sticking up for the gay agenda but I hate to burst your bubble but not all Democrats equate gay rights as being able to legally marry. I am a proponent of civil rights for all, especially those groups among us who tend to face more concerted discrimination (i.e. blacks, gay folk, women, latinos, etc.)but that does not mean that I think that it is the job of the government to say who should be wed.

I personally believe that marriage is a sacred act (sacred in the sense that the religious community conducts it) and unions are civil (in the sense that Justices, courts, etc. conduct them). The gov't should never decide what a religious institution is allowed to observe or perform. Additionally, I do not think that religious institutions have a right to decide or interfere with what civil institutions do.

The Democratic party IS the big tent party because it is made up of all types of people. Frankly, I am sick of the far left within the NCDP controlling everything and deluding themselves to believe that this is the belief of all Democrats. Believe it or not, there are Democrats (like me) who are not far-right nor far-left. Too long the far-left has had a strangle hold on the party here. You may find it hard to believe that I am a true blue Democrat who is also an evangelical pastor. I am also anti-abortion as birth control, anti-legalized homicide (better known as the death penalty), and a strong proponent of the constitution.

It is not the job of the Democratic Party to forge the agenda of any special interest group, per se. We need to represent our party and do our level best to represent all of those within our party (even people like me) without simply telling them to change party affiliation (oh, the arrogance...).

~Ray McKinnon

Right choice? Try only choice

I honestly feel like I don't have a choice -- it's either Hagan or six more years of Dole, which is unacceptable. I know that's a lukewarm endorsement at best, but it's about all I can muster.

Amen sister!

Why is it, that faced with two sub-standard choices, we are expected to cheer enthusiastically for the lesser evil? Or worse, remain silent and uncritical or be viewed as traitors?

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Good Question

Here's another: Ever feel like you're living with the Ministry of Truth? (not here at BlueNC per se, more referring to the whole country, esp. the Department of Homeland Security).

many other good candidates

There are many other good candidates and possible candidates, they just happen to be members of parties other than the Dems or Repubs.

Wake Forest won't play us anymore
Michigan last year
LSU - you are next
Go ASU!

But there has been an

But there has been an organized effort by a group of relative newcomers in NC Democratic Party poltics that self identify as "Progressive Democrats" to take control of the party has there not? I personally saw this attempt made at the precinct and county level in my home county. After they gained chairmanships in several precincts but failed to win the county chair position several became inactive, one precinct chair resigned and registered as unafiliated and some have chosen to remain and work within the party as a part of the "big tent".

I'm a moderate Democrat.

A Party within a party?

So is your group going to try and push out all the rest of us?

I'm a moderate Democrat.

See below, please.*

n/t

margin bell blues

can't
imagine
why
you'd
want
to
post
in
a
wider
part
of
the
thread

--
recently transplanted from Indianapolis, IN to Durham, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Gay rights is not Kay's only problem

She has many of the markings of the Lieberman school of Democrats, and subscribes to the idea that Republicans are reasonable people who can be worked with. She is scornful of the netroots and clueless about how the political landscape has RADICALLY altered over the last ten years.

I don't know were you get he idea that the "far left" controls the party when the party has virtually no far-left office holders. 95% of the party is center-right, or worse, Dixeiecrats.

If you are anti-death penalty, you are,according to many in the party "on the far-left".

As to your anti-abortion stance, I don't know ANY women who use abortion as a birth control device, but I have heard that lame argument pushed by a lot of people.

Since when is defending the rule of law, civil rights, and demanding accountability the hallmark of a "special interest group"?

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Since when?

She has many of the markings of the Lieberman school of Democrats, and subscribes to the idea that Republicans are reasonable people who can be worked with.

Now, Kosh. Let me respond first to the last line of your argument: "Since when is defending the rule of law, civil rights, and demanding accountability the hallmark of a "special interest group"?"

I agree that these things need to happen. I further agree that homosexuals have too often been victims to civil rights abuse. I don't think that defending the rule of law, civil rights, nor demanding accountability is the job of a "special interest group".

With that said, I don't think that demanding that two males or females have the legal right to marry is defending any of those principles. As I said (or intended to say) in my previous post, I do not agree that it is the job of the government to restrict civil unions, where there are full legal rights as married couples; this is a civil action that the government is well within its bounds to regulate. Where I have a problem is for the government to make a law concerning matters that are considered sacred, such as marriage. It is the job of the church, synagogue, mosque, etc. to marry these people. I can hear you now raising the objection that the church refused (and some persist to refuse) to marry people of the opposite race; that is wrong.

I like the fact that Kay Hagan understands that for anything to change that she needs to work with all people, whether they subscribe to her views or no. I agree with Joseph Addison; he says, "If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feeling." I love Kay and think that she will do a great job representing us; far better that Elizabeth Dole!

~Ray McKinnon

Uh, no, sorry

Where I have a problem is for the government to make a law concerning matters that are considered sacred, such as marriage. It is the job of the church, synagogue, mosque, etc. to marry these people.

The state issues a MARRIAGE license which is a LEGAL document that conveys certain rights, responsibilities and official GOVERNMENT recognition on a couple's relationship.

Some states have sought to differentiate between the two, since marriage seems to convey (in their brain) official sanction of their particular invisible supernatural being.

The word is "marriage". If the state wishes call it a "civil union" then they must issue a "civil union" license to EVERYONE getting married, not just gays and lesbians. Anything short of this has a different name "separate by equal", and we know how that went.

The genie is out of the bottle. Because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution, NC will have to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states. Gay marriage is a REALITY, just as interracial marriage is a REALITY.

It would appear that we are going down the same path as interracial marriage with 30-40 years of public officials looking the other way while everything from discrimination to overt physical assault takes place, until these people, unable to adapt to change, die.

Hagan could have been a LEADER, instead she chose to be a politician. She chose to be one of the people who resists sensible change.

She is a less evil politician than Dole, but still a politician who makes craven decisions based on doing what she thinks will get her elected rather than principle and ethics.

Obama has chosen the same path, and you see where that has led us.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Of course she is.

Of the two candidates on offer, Hagan is the correct choice, for me. I still don't like all of her positions.

Can we, instead, start talking about "for the good of North Carolina?" --Leslie H.
Pointing at Naked Emperors

I'm pretty dang liberal,

and I've actually been called a Socialist more than once, and was not overly offended by such. And while I have met Kay a few times, these encounters were brief and definitely didn't qualify as having "met with", in the sense that you describe.

But I have met and spoke at length with Colleen Flanagan, in person and via the intertubes, and she's both nice and smart, with a healthy sense of humor as well. That last thing is kind of important to me, since I can't go for more than an hour without saying or writing some sort of inanity.

Look Kosh, I respect your ideological stance, and we probably agree on 99% of possible solutions to the issues that face us all these days. So please take this recommendation from me and at least put it on the shelf to mull over later, okay?

I was one of Kay's most vehement detractors here for a long time, and I didn't make this transition lightly or quickly. I have spent a lot of time looking at Kay's and Liddy's public service and ideas for the future. And I know that whatever small thing I can do to help Kay win this election, I have done something that is worthwhile and will make the path to progress easier to walk.

It is very simple

All she has to do is keep her word. That's it.

With respect, Colleen Flanagan isn't running for the senate. Talking through surrogates is not acceptable.

It is one thing to discuss honest disagreement on an issue, another entirely to refuse to because you are playing politics. We need a LEADER, no a politician.

If she wants my support, and the support of others like me, she scan stop insulting my intelligence and talk TO us.

Again, the fact that she hasn't bothered to post a SINGLE word since May 8th speaks volumes to me. Even her surrogates can't be bothered to post here.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

over estimating our importance

"Again, the fact that she hasn't bothered to post a SINGLE word since May 8th speaks volumes to me. Even her surrogates can't be bothered to post here"

Maybe, just maybe we are overestimating our importance. Progressives didn't have the best track record in the primaries this past May.

Wake Forest won't play us anymore
Michigan last year
LSU - you are next
Go ASU!

Fine

We're unimportant. That's inspiring us to go to the polls

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Two things, then I'm done.

With respect, Colleen Flanagan isn't running for the senate.

Yes, she is. Maybe not as the future Senator, but her work has and will directly affect Kay's electability. She's already fielded questions from the MSM ranging from GOP-generated straw-man arguments to supposed campaign finance missteps, and every single word has to be perfect or they'll be used to flog her (and Kay).

I can write any kind of drivel I want to and get away with it, but Colleen can't. You can post any accusation you want to here about her or Kay, and what's the consequence? Nothing. But whatever Colleen writes or says is a "formal declaration" from the campaign, and is prone to be hyper-analyzed and contextually stretched. Which may be why we haven't seen her around here for a while.

Talking through surrogates is not acceptable.

Not talking through surrogates is impossible, at least for a candidate who actually wants to win. There were a few BlueNCer's who were surrogates in the days leading up to the Primary, myself included. Heck, even Paul had Titus and Timothy...

Two things and I'm done

It's about keeping your word. You say you are going to meet with people, you meet with them.

How is it brilliant political tactics to piss off a hardcore group of people who can watch your back?

Oh, wait. We're unimportant. She can win without us.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Kosh, get off it...

It is obvious to me, and probably everyone else on here, that what you really want is for Kay to come to you personally and ask for your help or endorsement; ain't gonna happen. It is clear to me that she has reached out; just not in a way that pleases you.

Kay Hagan is a FAR better choice than Liddy Dole, for goodness sakes!

Kay Hagan all the way!

~Ray McKinnon

No, not obvious to me

I don't think that's what Kosh has asked for.

Yes, Kay Hagan is a far better choice than Liddy Dole, and I am going to vote for her, but I respect Kosh's position and that of others who feel unsatisfied with how she has handled some legitimate questions.

So not "everyone else on here" agrees with your take on this.

Bru'

Touche', Bru

This is true; I misspoke when I said that everyone...

~Ray McKinnon

Pages