Rep. Nancy Boyda (Traitor-KS)....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Consider the district she represents for a moment, people...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A: She wasn't this pro-war during the election.

So what? Last year the Democrats gained from a large wave in their favour. Won't happen in 2008.
Unless Reps like Boyda modify their stances to fit their districts, they will lose their seats (if not in 2008, then in 2010 and so on).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fool. You really did prefer being in the minority, didn't you?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't the "Surge" polling around 15% popularity-wise?

Probably something like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know, but I would guess it's more part of an attempt to distance herself from any possible perception of being a (gasp!) liberal, than anything else.
My point here isn't so much as to defend her position (which I happen to disagree with) or even whether it's a clever position to be seen to be taking, but to argue that when a party has a fairly small majority, a lot of leeway has to be given to members who hold marginal seats to toe a somewhat different line on certain issues to the rest of the party, especially if they think it will (in some way) help them to get re-elected.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We don't need her vote. If she wants to be a pawn of the warmongers, we can ensure that she is a one termer.

You might not need her vote, but what's to say you won't take exactly the same line the next time a Democratic Rep in a marginal district says something that you don't like?

The point you edited in has been answered elsewhere, btw.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So she has to join the most insane 11% of the population just to not be labeled a liberal?

I'm not Nancy Boyda so I don't know do I?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but that was in Louisville you know. And it's not as though people voted for him because of that... he won (and I'm pleased that he won, btw) because he's well-known in the area and because of the national swing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats have about 31 seats more than the Republicans, right? To me that's a fairly small, but not unworkable and not tiny, majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? I always said that the Republicans had a small majority.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's a big difference between someone saying something I don't like. and them undercutting their party by joining the most extreme 11%.

Funny; I thought you were the one who just said that you'd now rather have a Republican in this district than Boyda.
How is that not also undercutting your party?