The single-issue liberals are at it again

“Too many of them would rather be ‘right’ than be in power.”

-Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman

Last year, I was very vocal in my support for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman because I thought it was extremely unfair for the liberal/progressive/whatever-it-is-they’re-calling-themselves-today wing of the Democratic Party to target him for defeat simply because of a disagreement over one single issue; the war in Iraq.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the single-issue looney left is at it again; and this time, Georgia Congressman Jim Marshall has drawn their ire and become their newly-anointed whipping boy.

Jim Marshall is a Democrat that has voted with the House Democratic Caucus 81.9% of the time. What that means is that out of the 888 votes that Jim Marshall has cast since being elected to Congress in 2002, he’s only voted against the House Democratic Caucus a paltry 18.1% of the time. Unfortunately, we’ve got these looney liberals out there, raising and spending money, who seem as if they are willing to trade a Democratic Congressman for a Republican one over a lousy 18%!

What kind of sense does that make?

Yes, I was disappointed in Marshall’s vote against S-CHIP, but my disappointment ended when folks started calling for his head in the Democratic primary. When it all comes down to it, I’d rather have a Democratic Congressman who votes with the Democratic caucus 81.9% of the time than a Republican Congressman who votes against the Democratic caucus 100% of the time.

Year after year, Jim Marshall is targeted by national Republicans and year after year he beats them back. I’m convinced that Jim Marshall may be the only Democrat that can get elected out of a district that went overwhelmingly for President Bush and Gov. Perdue in 2004 and 2006. The problem is that we’ve got folks in my party, the Democratic Party, who are willing to kick Jim Marshall to the curb over one issue; over 18.1%

I remember telling someone that getting 90% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

We know what we’ve got. We’ve got a Democratic Congressman in a Republican district. We’ve got a Democratic Congressman contributing to the new Democratic majority in Washington. We’ve a Democratic Congressman who voted for the first female Speaker of the House. And we’ve got a Democratic Congressman that votes with the rest of the Democratic caucus 81.9% of the time. Jim Marshall is our 90% and I’m not willing to trade our 90% Democrat for a 100% Republican.

During the foolish campaign to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman (which the looney liberals lost I might add), I frequently turned to the words of former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman…

“Too many of them would rather be ‘right’ than be in power.”

The “them” Gov. Whitman was talking about were the members of the Republican Party who were imposing strict, ideological litmus tests on Republican candidates and purging the G.O.P of those individuals who did not meet their rigid standards. The same thing is going on in the Democratic Party. You’ve got these ideologically pure Democrats, many of whom don’t even live in the 8th Congressional district, trying to pull a Joe Lieberman on Jim Marshall. And much like Christine Todd Whitman said, these folks would rather claim a small victory by defeating someone who doesn’t meet their standards than be in power. They would rather purge the Democratic Party of those so-called “DINOs” and have some sort of moral prize on their collective trophy case than be in the majority.

Honestly, I’ve been a party to this flawed line of thinking. A few years ago, I called out state Rep. Mike Jacobs and his vote for the Republican-sponsored House rules. In hindsight, I know I was wrong because now there is one less Democrat in the Georgia House of Representatives and one more Republican. Back then, I bought into the line of thinking that “we want some ‘real Democrats’ in office” & “we’ve got to get ‘Republican-lite’ out of there.” Now, I could care less about this crap concerning who is and isn’t a ‘real Democrat.’ All I want is some Democrats up in office, because quite frankly, half the stuff that Georgia Democrats opposed wouldn’t even have come up for a vote if there was a Democratic majority.

Voter ID…would’ve died in committee.
Cutting PeachCare…would’ve died in committee.
The $1 billion in cuts to education…would’ve died in committee.
Closing the door on open government in Georgia…would’ve died in committee.
“Go Fish Georgia”…oh yeah, that would’ve definitely died in committee.

Georgia Democrats need to keep their eye on the ball here. The unfortunate reality is that we’re in the minority. We don’t have the votes (excuse my French) to stop a damn thing; so instead of turning our proverbial guns on fellow Georgia Democrats like Jim Marshall over 18.1%, we need to focus our fire on the Republicans.

One final note, I’m steadily starting to warm up to the notion by conservative talk radio host Michael Savage (who I listen to from time to time) that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”.


  1. Skeptical says:

    First things first, if you are even remotely thinking that Michael Savage might be right about something, you are in no way a Democrat, conservative or otherwise, so please stop sullying our good names by calling yourself one.

    Those in the blogosphere have watched your transformation from a Deaniac to a Herman Cain wannabee. Do us all a favor and go with God…or better yet, just go.

    Now, to get to the matter at hand – Jim Marshall.

    I again ask what good is it to have him in office to supposedly support the Democratic majority if he simply refuses to vote with the majority on issues that are historically Democratic?

    He’s Mr. Gung-ho Iraq War. He’s anti-women controlling their own medical decisions with their doctors concerning their own bodies. He votes against stem cell research (which even the widow and family of the Republican God himself, Reagan, is in favor of and his stubborn refusal to vote for SCHIP is just a slap in the face to his constituents and every Democrat elsewhere that cares for children, no matter what their family’s circumstances are.

    Also, your argument for him voting with the Dems 81.9% of the time is bullshit. Strip away the procedural votes and it is far lower. Hell, that’s if he bothers to show up to vote at all.

    And as far as you and Christine are concerned – sometimes being right is more important than winning, especially if it means that you stood up for children instead of pandering for political points in your district. That doesn’t make you a good representative. That makes you an asshole.

  2. RuralDem says:


    I agree with you for the most part. If only the moderate/conservative wing of our party was louder, maybe we could nullify these foolish attacks on Marshall.

    I do NOT agree with his vote on SCHIP. However, I’d rather have someone in there who has shown an independent streak and is willing to go against his party instead of someone who simply votes the party line. 80% of the time is better than 10%.

    Some of our friends who apparently have no idea about the area seem to think that a liberal (excuse me, “progressive) can win the seat. I think anyone who has any clue of the district realizes how hilarious that thought is.

  3. Holly says:

    Grift, I think the post stands without the Michael Savage part. I think Republicans have a similar issue. . .

  4. griftdrift says:

    Oh no doubt Holly. No doubt at all. I don’t think its a secret in these parts that I have no problem calling out Republicans for being idiots. But Michael Savage? Give me a break.

  5. Andre Walker says:

    “Sometimes being right is more important than winning.”

    Yeah, but if you’re in the minority, as Democrats are in this state, then what good does it do to be right and not have the power stop all the wrong that goes on in state government.


    If I may, let me pose a question to you:

    Which would prefer?

    Being right, losing, remaining in the minority, but being able to sit around a bowling alley with your friends bragging about how you were right…


    Would rather win, get back in the majority, and work towards making sure that all the stuff the other side is wrong about doesn’t see the light of day.

    Actually, here’s another question for you, would you rather chalk up the moral victories or would you like to govern.

    My answer to those two questions is A.) I want to win; and B.) I want to govern.

  6. griftdrift says:

    Yeah and you also said you were coming around to Savage’s way of thinking that liberalism is a mental disorder.

    The funny thing is I agree with Marshall on the S-CHIP issue. But I’ve had many fruitful conversations with people who are willing to try to convince me I’m wrong. It is possible to have a civil conversation about the issue without invoking the Firedoglakes and the Savages.

  7. Mark Rountree says:

    Andre, for an entirely different reason than you intend, you’ve said it all why Marshall has to go. He has voted with the Democratic Caucus 81.9% of the time.

    That is definitely a reason to bring him home and elect someone who simply WON’T vote with those loonies. You are exactly right in your point — and I in my point — that he is still a foot soldier for the tax and spend Democrat national machine.

    You wrote: “Jim Marshall is a Democrat that has voted with the House Democratic Caucus 81.9% of the time. What that means is that out of the 888 votes that Jim Marshall has cast since being elected to Congress in 2002, he

  8. candlerpark says:

    Just like “Holy Joe” Lieberman, what matters is how he votes when the chips are down as opposed to the 80% or whatever . . .

    I do not know much about Marshall. But if he places himself on the side of Bush in an important vote for his party that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

  9. souldrift says:

    Andre, normally I like much of your writing, but I can’t go with you here.

    First, if this is about children’s healthcare and the prior dispute was over Iraq, that would be two issues and not one, correct?

    Second, you lost me at the end by quoting Savage (didn’t Coultergeist use that too?). Sorry, I don’t apologize for leaning liberal–though I also don’t apologize for crossing over where I deem it appropriate.

    Any Democrat who is willing to contribute to the far-right brainwashing which tells us “liberal” is inherently bad is not much of a Democrat in my eyes.

  10. Decaturguy says:

    First off, I can’t believe that you are quoting such a nutjob like Michael Savage. I think everyone here, right, left, Democrat or Republican would agree with that. Pretty much ruins the credibility of everything else you say. If you can ever get a government created (it will take more than 15% of the support of the voters), Andre, where you can run for office, you better believe that this will be used against you.

    But back to your point, you said:

    A few years ago, I called out state Rep. Mike Jacobs and his vote for the Republican-sponsored House rules. In hindsight, I know I was wrong because now there is one less Democrat in the Georgia House of Representatives and one more Republican.

    Voting for the rules of your party is such a baseline thing to do. It is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue, like voting for the Speaker, that determines whether you support one party’s leadership or the other. If you can’t even do that, then I don’t see why it matters that you call yourself a member of one party, but you support the leadership of the other.

  11. dingleberry says:


    Don’t let Degayturgay get to you…he’s just jealous because you can pick up chicks and he can’t because he’s a militant gay who hates straight people.

    You preach the Savage Gospel brother! Let Degayturgay join his friends Federalist, GodHatesTrash, and RugbyFan in their studio apartment in HELL! They’ll have to drink cold coffee and have pineapples placed in their anuses on a DAILY BASIS.

  12. dingleberry says:

    and have pineapples placed in their anuses on a DAILY BASIS.

    Or as Degayturgay calls it…”Thursday night.”

  13. rugby_fan says:


    I don’t drink coffee.

    However, while in Hell, I will educate these gentlemen on the greatness of John Eales and then they will be happy upon seeing the light.

  14. dingleberry says:

    You won’t have to educate them…you can introduce them to Mr. Eales. Everyone knows that Rugby players go to HELL!!!! Especially ones that get credit for being better than they actually were.

    I don

  15. dingleberry says:

    By the way, I still hate that guy named “John Walraven” who posts here from time to time.

    If you guys get a chance, do a Google Image Search of “John Walraven” and take a look at him. It’s the first picture.

Comments are closed.