Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
maybe not for you, but there are certainly voters in both parties who will only vote for members of that party, come hell or high water.
|
Respectfully, though, Danzig, there are far more Republicans who walk in lockstep with their elected officials than Democrats. It's one of the Dem's big problems- they are such a wide collection of people with different agendas that there is no cohesion to the party, and no real sense of what the party is "for." And there is far more willingness on the Dem side to turn on their party. How many Republicans do you know who claim they are in favor of small government and individual rights, and yet they voted for Bush in '04, even though he spent his first term expanding government and gutting the 4th Amendment? They voted for a candidate who had four years to demonstrate he would push forward policies directly opposite to what these people claim to want. But staying loyal to their team was more important than how the team was going to play.
McCain has voted against several measures that would have increased funding for veterans; how many military people do you think will vote for him simply because he has an "R" after his name? Again, the candidate has made it clear he will vote against their interests, but hey, at least he's not a Democrat.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040002
I'm not disputing that there are party loyalists on both sides; I'm just saying it's far from an equal balance. Which stinks, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what letter is after a candidate's name; it matters how they vote, and few people bother to really look into that. Probably because it would take valuable time away from watching
American Idol.
Though right now, that answer is easy on what Dems in Congress are for is easy- they're for whatever Bush wants them to do. It's quite a situation when more Republicans approve of the job the Democrats in Congress are doing than Democrats do.