I'm a Democrat. So, I understand why people write here saying that, even though Michael Arcuri is scum, we should vote Arcuri. They're saying that, above all else, we should help the Democrats get a majority in Congress.
I understand why people make that argument, but that argument relies upon an unstated premise. That unstated premise is this: That a Democratic majority in Congress would have voted against HR 6166, the pro-torture, anti-freedom bill that Michael Arcuri supports.
That unstated premise is false.
Do the math: Even if the Democrats had 25 more seats in the House of Representatives to gain a clear majority, HR 6166 would have passed. 34 Democrats crossed party lines to vote for HR 6166.
The reality that these Arcuri-loyalists don't want to admit is that the Democratic majority will not be able to change very much, if enough of those Democrats keep on supporting the Republican agenda, as Arcuri would do.
Mike Arcuri told us that if he gets into Congress, he will vote with the Republicans. If he gets in Congress Mike Arcuri will help George W. Bush. That's what Mike Arcuri told us this week.
Michael Arcuri is a Lieberman Democrat. He is part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Jon - with Democratic control, the bill would never have reached the floor. No vote at all.
I can understand your rage, but the reason we are even dealing with this is because of R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S.
Give us two houses of Democrats and Bush becomes a wild talking, nutless wonder.
Jon said "No Allen, I disagree with you. A vote for Michael Arcuri is like a vote for Joseph Lieberman."
In the Lieberman-Lamont primary, voters had a clear choice, and either way their vote was important. I said that voting for a third party in November, as opposed to Arcuri or Meier would be futile like voting for Nader in the Bush-Gore race.
I think there's a flaw in your math argument - not with the math itself, but with some of your assumptions. I would guess that the majority of the 34 democrats that supported 6166, did so because of pressure from the DCCC, not because they believe in torture, and the revocation of the Bill of Rights. If we get a Democratic majority in the House, and it comes up again, it will not pass. It would fail by a large margin, because the DCCC pressure would be gone, and Republicans would have less pressure on them from their leadership. The dogmatic control from Hastert and Bonner would suffer a big hit.
I frankly think Arcuri will vote the way the person sitting next to him votes. He's not a Republican. He's not particularly a Democrat. He's kinda. . . nothing.
Maybe this will teach a lesson to the Chairs and others who pick a candidate by potential dollars raised and not by ideology.
But I doubt it.
You people are traitors. To your party, to your country, and to your ideals.
"You people are traitors. To your party, to your country, and to your ideals."
Democracy, and America, have survived by the thinnest of margins not by the highest of ideals. We can all wish it were not so and claim lofty status, but the truth is bitter and painful.
You want to feel better about the next two years with Bush as President? Elect a Democratic Congress. You want to continue to watch the decline of America and feel less and less comfortable in bitching about it? Vote for any other party and allow the Republicans to stay in office. The choice is yours.
Put Arcuri in a room with Duckworth and he'll get the picture.
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/
news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2006093014290001404420
All this talk about this abstract "Democratic majority" misses the point:
I'm not voting in this election so that Steny Hoyer can become the Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi can become speaker of the House.
I'm voting in this election for someone to represent me in Congress. Michael Arcuri does not represent my values. He represents the opposite of my values. So does Ray Meier.
Mike Sylvia is the clear choice.
For you all to say that I should vote for Mike Arcuri, in spite of his pro-Republican ideology, in order to advance the careers of the leaders of the Democratic Party, is the height of arrogance.
3:50 - this has nothing to do with advancing anyone's political career. This election is about neutralizing George Bush or suffering the consequences. If you believe anything else, you are either one of his supporters or you can't see the forest for the trees.
A post above says "I'm not voting in this election so that Steny Hoyer can become the Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi can become speaker of the House. I'm voting in this election for someone to represent me in Congress. Michael Arcuri does not represent my values." I hear you. I'd like to stick to my principals and agree with you. But I don't think we can afford the luxury ,right now, of being principled. You get to cast one vote. The only way to use that vote to affect change is to vote Democratic. If our government was acting responsibly, I wouldn't say that, but they are most definitely not. If Arcuri was way ahead, I'd vote for Sylvia as a protest vote. But we all know that it's a close race and Sylvia isn't going to win. Vote for Arcuri, take back Congress, then find a better candidate and start preparing for the next primary. Also, work for Instant Run Off Voting -http://www.instantrunoff.com/ then next time you could vote for Sylvia as your first choice and Arcuri as your second choice and your vote wouldn't be wasted and Sylvia would have a better chance because lots of people would do the same. (including me)
"For you all to say that I should vote for Mike Arcuri, in spite of his pro-Republican ideology, in order to advance the careers of the leaders of the Democratic Party, is the height of arrogance."
I'm not trying to advance anybody's carreer, I'm trying to save my ass, and I'm not really very arrogant.
1:22--Traitor? I don't understand.
So on one issue, you get all hissy and declare that you are throwing your support to Mike Sylvia? The man who wants to restore the gold standard?
I'm trying to imagine what this blog would look like if it were a Republican front. First, it would push the weakest possible Democratic candidate--someone like Les Roberts. Second, it would spread rumors about the strongest Democratic candidate--Mike Arcuri. Third, once Arcuri cleared the primary field it would spend months talking about how terrible Arcuri is and what a poor campaign he's running. Finally, a few weeks before the election it would find some issue to declare that it's pulling its "support" from Arcuri and then proceed to tell everyone to waste their vote on a crackpot third party candidate.
I'm sure glad nothing like that has happened.
1:22 AM--Hilarious! Best. Conspiracy. Theory. Evah. Heh.
Bruce Tytler was the weakest Democratic candidate.
We see that 1:22's radar is so sharp it sees things that aren't even there.
While amusing, it still does nothing to address the many obvious shortcomings of Mike Arcuri.
Post a Comment