Goldwater tried, and failed, in 1964. Well, with the New Deal, not necessarily with Marx.

Kathy's peers (Sixties) wanted to go farther than the New Deal. Oh, the setbacks after 1980.

(Kathy — if you have radio you can listen to, try Thom “Reagan = Dark Age Initiation” Hartmann or Big Ed “Kick Harry Reid in the Butt and Make Congress Do Their Job on Health Care and More” Schultz.)

Sixties definitely is old-fashioned! OK, so you still dream big — public option is a great compromise, etc.

Plus, you don't like righties, but you're not (usually, or often) reactionary as so many lefties are, just a bit defensive now and then.

Don't worry yet about the fate of the public option and health care “reform” in the Senate, on in conference. Not yet. Don't even worry yet about abortion (though social-cons may seize the issue now).

I'm from the 1960s. I can't shake all that antiquated stuff about compassion and conscience.

Just call me old-fashioned.

You Hippie! =P

It's just so easy to do.

See, we can agree I find it very easy as well. =D

What can I say, DLS? I'm from the 1960s. I can't shake all that antiquated stuff about compassion and conscience.

Just call me old-fashioned.

If you read the link, you know that the CNN article specifically mentions that Cao's district is majority Democratic.

Having said that, I just clicked on the link and the article isn't there anymore. I'm not sure why it was taken down, but I suppose I'll have to drop the argument because I can't quote from an article that has vanished.

“Conscience”? That's right out of the 1960s. I'm surprised you didn't say “Compassion.” [chuckle]

The griping about Lieberman has about as much depth, too.

What happens when the Senate shoves the legislative effort for “reform” back more toward reality?

What happens if the Senate says “no public option,” even worse than a “trigger” with the equivalent of an anti-gun lunatic's dream of a “trigger lock” on it?

*I* personally don't refer to William Jefferson, but the quote that I pasted right smack dab in front of your face in the post refers to William Jefferson! And it also says the district is heavily Democratic

No you personally don't, and the article only says it was an upset, not a democratic district. Usually when a long-term incumbent loses to a freshman congressman it is considered an upset. As to the reference to Jefferson of your link it does not point out his corruption convictions 11 counts or so I believe, and the fact that the voters of that district still voted for him after being caught with the money in his freezer and re-elected him. As for whats on the front of my face its my nose, I can see it.

that's the entire point of the compromise Cao made! And it SAYS the district is Democratic! Right there, Leonidas! In the post! READ!

No its not the point, the point is his district was full of voters who “want health care reform”. That doesn't automatically make them democrats. In fact many democratic voters oppose it, including 25% of those in the House.

Also you have this that you quoted:

“So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles

This leaves an impression that the district might be moderate.

For a look at the recent voting history of the district see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana's_2nd_co...

Also note this bit at the link:

It has also historically been among the most safely Democratic seats in the country; the Republicans had not held this seat since 1891, until Republican nominee Anh Joseph Cao upset Democratic incumbent William J. Jefferson in 2008 for the term to begin in January 2009.

Clearly not a moderate district.

I suggest you heed your own advice and read what you wrote before tossing out claims that someone didn't read what you wrote.

*I* personally don't refer to William Jefferson, but the quote that I pasted right smack dab in front of your face in the post refers to William Jefferson! And it also says the district is heavily Democratic! that's the entire point of the compromise Cao made! And it SAYS the district is Democratic! Right there, Leonidas! In the post! READ!

Forget the rest of your comment; this is too depressing.

Lastly, whether a a one votes ones “conscience” or the majority view of ones constituents is the harrowing divide every congressperson must confront. There is no absolute right or wrong answer… except for the Monday morning bystanders who can make accusations of “egoism” when a political enemy votes their conscience, or “political selling out” when the vote is with the majority. Voting ones conscience is sometimes bravery, sometimes a cover, and sometimes just plain ol' politics (as Mr Leonidas postulates in here).

Again, agree with him or not, I believe Mr Leonidas' insights are as worthy of our respect as yours.