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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Great, another sellout gets bought out by the defense lobbyists.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Two problems with your argument.
A: She wasn't this pro-war during the election.
B: I'd rather have a Republican in that seat than some crazy warmonger who undermines the Democratic party

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

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.

The surge has 11% nationwide, so she's far more warmongering than her district. Democrats not having a spine, and joining that 11% is the best way to have Democrats lose. You really don't have a clue, do you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

So, how exactly does it help to be taking a stance on an issue that is as popular as banning all abortions?

11% of Americans

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

So she has to join the most insane 11% of the population just to not be labeled a liberal? That does not make her more electable. She might be stupid and think it will, but face it, we had a Planned Parenthood director defeat an incumbent in Kentucky. People like people who have clear core beliefs. I was talking to a swing voter yesterday who said that was the main problem he had with Hillary.

"Fairly small majority"? What total right-wing propaganda BS. The Democrats have more seats than the Republicans have had in every Congress since the do nothing Congress of 1948, except that there were a whole 3 more Republicans in the 1997-1998 Congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

There's a big difference between someone saying something I don't like. and them undercutting their party by joining the most extreme 11%. Kerry was saying sh**t I didn't like all the time in the 2004 election, and I still gave him money, volunteered for him, and voted for him. You truly don't have a clue.