And Tim Roemer differs from a Republican...how?

It's looking more and more like a battle to the death between the Washington/appeasement wing of the Democratic party, and the progressives who want the Democratic Party to actually stand for something. The latest name to be floated is former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, whom Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have endorsed.



Here are some goodies from Roemer's voting record (via "blogswarm" at Kos):



Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)



Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)



Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)



Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)



Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)



Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)



Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)



Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)



Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)



Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)



Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)



Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)



Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)



Voted NO on Prescription Drug Coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000)



Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)



Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)



In case you couldn't tell, Roemer is also a DLC guy.



With this kind of voting record, why should we vote Democratic instead of for REAL Republicans?



Blogistan is pretty well abuzz with this news, and there's a growing sentiment that if someone like Roemer is the DNC pick, it's a message to the rest of us that the party doesn't want us.



I'm on record as stating that the Green Party, never having successfully elected a national candidate, and without a coherent platform, may not be the way to go. But even if it means living under totalitarian Republican rule in perpetuity (and that would be different with an appeasement Democratic party...how?) I will NOT give a Democratic party that's like this a nickel more of my money or a minute more of my sweat equity.