You are not gong to get a solid conservative in North Chicago, Kirk’s district. You are just not. Not for 2010 anyway. So way cry over spilled milk and waste time pissing in the wind.

170 of 178. We are the minority and we are kicking people out. The Dem whip lost 44 votes and they are not trying to kick all of them out. They are protecting them for 2010 runs. Because Dems figured out how to build a winning majority.

And all 8 voted against the Stimulus. Back then the only thing that mattered was the stimulus bill. We got them despite pressure from the pressures to vote for it.

There are better places to expend energy. There are bigger fights. Every bit of energy wasted on Kirk or Reichart could be used organizing against the Senate cap and trade vote.

But there is this is foot stomp after every vote because Republicans in Blue districts didn’t follow the party bosses. As if they went around their district when they were campaigning in North New Jersey and North Chicago promising to follow the GOP party bosses every time.

and that given votes like this on such a clear issue, that these may well be the ones!

I don’t know, but do find it instructive that they all voted against the stimulus and budget.

at the eight, outweigh our needed actions against the democrats.

I think you make great points Aa, but I guess I no longer expect much from any politician, even our “best” elected conservatives, and that We the People are going to have to try and save this country with a flawed GOP, but GOP nonetheless, and for that GOP to be an effective tool, we are going to have to settle for many derelicts like the eight.

make sense?
can this bring swamp and non-swamp yankees and those of us from Dixie together?

I’ll bet you that pittance that the Dems knew exactly what they were voting for the entire time. They have forced enough rush votes to know they could pass it even theough it didn’t exist THEN, Barney and everyone else could add anything they wanted to after the vote. I can see nancy rubbing her hands and cackling with glee thinking of what they could add to a non-existant, unread bill AFTER it had been voted on and passed.

Although, I DO think that reading that %$&#ing legislation ought to be a no-brainer. None of those 8 would have been in any trouble in their districts, had they gone back and said, “you know what? mine might well have been an “aye” vote, but Madame Speaker didn’t allow us time to read a draft of the legislation.”

It’s called being a responsible Legislator, and I think most voters are smart enough to appreciate it.

Patronage Parties play by a different set of rules than Principle Parties.

Patronage Parties can tailor their patronage to specific localities and local populations.

Principle Parties have to *stand* for certain universal principles – if they don’t they *fail*.

The biggest mistake we can make is trying to play the Dems’ game. That’s why a ’50-state’/’435-district’ strategy is a non-starter for the GOP (note: I’m not saying we shouldn’t *run* people in all 435 districts – just that we should have no illusions about actually winning in at least 100 of those districts, nor should we attempt to ‘tailor’ candidates to run in Blue districts).

The GOP should NOT be trying to run ‘squishes’ to win in ‘Blue’ districts/states – what they need to do is run better conservative candidates in Red & Purple districts/states and win in those Red & Purple districts that have gotten away from them in the last 15 years (and in those they failed to capture, even in 1994; see, for example: ND-AL & Waco, TX).

First, why do you expect CardCheck to be any different? Are there no Republicans who have union members as their constituents?

And as far as cutting both ways…no actually it doesn’t. It is one’s duty to either stall long enough for the bill to be read or to vote no if that opportunity is not allowed.

we knew enough about it to be against it, because of what the bill was about. We knew, in essence what it did, and we knew it was a bad thing based on that essence. Republicans and dems who voted for it may have liked the essence, but THEY are in a position of actual decision-making. It IS incumbent on them to read the legislation and make sure there’s nothing in it that’s harmful or pointless.

We disagreed on the principle of it. People who actually are tasked to make the decision on it SHOULD know exactly what it is they are voting on.