Supposing your only choice in a general election were between these two Senate candidates:

A moderate-to-liberal female Republican who usually breaks ranks with her party on votes related to social issues--she is staunchly pro-choice, for instance--but who generally supports the party leadership.

A conservative male Democrat who usually breaks rank with his party on votes related to social issues--he is anti-choice, for instance--but who remains a member of the Democratic caucus.

Who would you vote for?

Another way of asking the question is this: which is more important to you, party affiliation or political ideology?  If you're forced to make a choice for one of the two, which do you choose?

The Human Rights Campaign has an article in the Fall 2005 issue of "Equality" listing ten Congressional races to get involved in.

In his diary KBowe wrote:

It appears that the only thing Dennis Hastert is guilty of is not censoring himself before speaking...like all the other "compassionate conservatives" have been during the last few days.

Does anyone besides me think that Hastert was not speaking from his own mind or heart?

Here's how I imagine it works:

The Republican machine has this idea.  They know it doesn't make good political sense for it to come from the President.  So they go through their list of patsies, looking for someone to float the idea before the press and the nation.  Initially people denounce him and the idea, but a bit of a flame is ignited in the form of a small wave of public opinion.  Meanwhile, the patsy backtracks, saying he was misquoted or he misspoke or his comments were taken out of context and misunderstood.  But gradually the idea takes on a life of its own, and then it can become Republican policy.

In this instance, Hastert was the patsy.  Watch it unfold.

I found this blog and became an avid reader and very occasional contributor a little over a year ago, when we were in the midst of an election and it felt exciting to be a part of the groundswell that would send Dubya back to Texas.  Reading the posts back then, I felt proud to be part of this movement.  For the first time ever I contributed dollars to a political campaign.  I also volunteered, did some canvassing.  I attended the precinct caucus, became an alternate Dean delegate, and went to the Congressional District caucus (but didn't get seated as a delegate).

I live in Seattle, where it's easy to be liberal.  Before I moved here, I lived in Eureka, Illinois, a rural community in the central part of the state, where it was very hard to be liberal.  When I'd go vote in a primary in this little town, there'd be five voting booths for the Republican primary, and people would be waiting in line, and one lonely booth for the Democrats, no waiting.  I taught at the alma mater of Ronald Reagan in this little town and had the "honor" of seeing and hearing him when he spoke at commencement in the early 1990s.

Through all my time in Eureka, Illinois, I clung hard and fast to my liberal ideals.  I still count myself as a proud liberal, a committed progressive.  But if there is anything to make me start to reconsider, it's the growing rhetoric of intolerance on this blog.

Can someone help me understand why, when, in an article that exhorts the Democratic Party to "provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems," the Washington Post criticizes Howard Dean for failing to articulate clear positions on critical issues, they deserve to be demonized?

Why, when NARAL comes out with an ad that is blatantly misleading and dishonest, they are defended for "doing their job"?

Why, when an NPR commentator points out that service in our military sometimes requires the ultimate sacrifice, he is vilified?

I believe we can disagree with our allies and still be allies.  We can engage in healthy debate and recognize that people with diverse opinions are going to have to come together to embrace the common goal of progressive American values.

And I believe that the best way we can disagree with our enemies is not by name calling, not by sinking to their level of divisive politics, but by proving that we have a better way.

Last year, in spite of our differences, we came together and supported John Kerry.  The atmosphere was electric on MyDD.

Now it just smells bad.

Remember Health Savings Accounts?  What a great idea.  If you are enrolled in a high-deductible health care plan, you can put money in an account, pretax, in some cases matched in part by your employer, in order to pay your medical expenses.

This was part of the Medicare bill that passed and became law in December 2003.

Here's what has come to pass at my company, where we are in the midst of open enrollment in our healthcare benefits, thanks to this new law.

A lot has been written about how "they" seem to be able to win the Name Game by coining phrases to make "their" views seem common-sensical and ours non-sensical.  Some examples:

Right to Life
Partial Birth Abortion
Culture of Life
Ownership Society

Happily, we do seem to be winning on Privatization over Personalization, but it remains to be seen where that one ends up.

This morning on NPR there was a story about how the new Pope seems to be signaling his support for the political agenda of religious conservatives.  One person (one of "them") who was interviewed referred to the "politically correct" movement as if it were a discrete entity.

So I think it's time to start calling them what they are: "Holier Than Thou-ers."  Or "The Self-Righteous Right."

Or...?

How can we disseminate new phraseology to better frame issues and define our political adversaries?

Frank Rich is my hero.  (But why the NY Times puts him in the "Arts" section is beyond my understanding.)

Rich hits the nail on the head in this discussion of how the White House's stages the news.

But I don't think he goes far enough in decrying the administration's blatant effort to destroy the free, independent press that is the protector of our nation's free democracy.

Yes, the journalists have to take some of the blame for kowtowing to the propaganda machine, for softballing in the name of access.  But the calculated way the usurpers of our government have perpetrated fraud and manipulation of the press truly frightens me.  That they've been successful to me indicates that we may never again have a free press to investigate and uncover threats to our freedom.  If this had been happening thirty-odd years ago, the Watergate scandal would never have come to light.  Twenty-odd years ago, Iran-Contra would never have come to light.

Thank God for Frank Rich, but this is not a story for the Arts section.  It should be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation, the lead story on every news broadcast.  It's a scandal of the worst kind.

Jim Prentice, Conservative Party member of the Parliament of Canada, representing the Calgary area, announced that he'll be voting for the same-sex marriage bill in Parliament.

Calgary, if you're not au courant with Canuckian politics, isn't exactly the most liberal spot in Canada. It's probably the least liberal (as one of my Canadian friends says, "Calgary is Canada's Texas.")  What amazes me is that he is actually following his own conscience and his own philosophical principles, even when they lead him to what is probably for him rather uncomfortable territory, a stand that is likely to be unpopular with his constituents.

Here is a link to his statement on the issue.

And here's an excerpt that I wish some of the members of our Congress from both political parties should memorize: