"Are there any intellectually honest Democrats left?"

Aside from Zell Miller, it doesn't look like it. Here in Colorado, we had a tough Senate race in 2004 between Ken Salazar and Pete Coors. While I wanted Coors to win, Salazar had run on claims of being a moderate Democrat, with campaign promises that included a commitment to an up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee. So when Salazar squeaked by with a narrow win, it didn't seem as bad as if a real hard-liner lefty had won.

He started off OK, by voting for Alberto Gonzalez, and we thought maybe we had one of the very very few rational Dems in the Senate. Well, recent events have blown that theory out the window. It didn't take long for old Kenny-Boy to be totally co-opted. Just in the past week or so he has voted against getting rid of the filibuster, claimed that the right wants a "theocracy" instead of a "democracy" and accused Reverend Dobson and his followers of being "Antichrists". Considering the rapidity of his entry into the Loony Left, I'm guessing it was not a very long journey, and that he just plain lied---LIED!! I tell you!---in his campaign.

In a way it's good. Kenny may have made some really close friends in the Senate, but he pretty much toasted his chances for reelection in Colorado. His win was so close, and so dependent on his claims of middle-of-the-road philosophies, I don't think this rabid hysterical response to letters asking him to rethink his filibuster position are going to do him any good next time around.

But our one hope for an intellectually honest Dem has been shattered, at least in this state.

Almiranta... I didn't know you were here in Colorado, too.

You are so right about why Salazar got through. My husband was very close to voting for him (he really didn't like Pete Coors), but changed his mind at the last minute because of Salazar's stance on gun control.

Now, I'm so, SO glad that I don't have the additional embarrassment of having inadvertantly helped put such an obstructionist there in the Senate. I'm embarrassed enough that he's the one who's supposed to be representing me.

Colorado went to Bush, so I must assume that Salazar's win was based solely on Bush supporters that believed he was more independent minded than he is (the image that came across during the campaign was one of someone that did what was right for the people, rather than someone who strictly followed party lines). That being the case, he is very unlikely to be re-elected (at least, I sure hope so). I know I won't even be considering him next time... instead, I'll be working against his re-election. It kills me that it'll be over 5 years before anything can be done about him.

I had not seen a commitment to an up-or-down vote as part of his campaign... can you point me to a place where it's documented? I've been thinking about calling his office, and I would love to have a reneged on campaign promise to cite.

LNC:

From the Washington Times: (quoting the Rocky Mountain News)

"In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Sen.-elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations," the paper's editorial board wrote Nov. 8. "We hope he sticks with that position even if his Democratic colleagues-to-be lean on him, as they are almost certain to do."

The article concludes:

During his campaign for the Senate, Mr. Salazar pointed to his letter of support for Mr. Myers as proof of his independence from Capitol Hill Democrats.

Mr. Salazar has since withdrawn that support and now says he hasn't decided how he will vote. Said one Republican aide: "The voters in Colorado sent to Washington someone who would support such a well-qualified nominee that understands Western values. The people of Colorado are watching him closely."

From the Rocky Mountain News:

An editorial by Mike Rosen

During the campaign, Salazar flatly stated that he favored an up-or-down vote for Bush's judicial nominees in the U.S. Senate. Now, he's rationalizing a continuation of the obstructionist filibuster, not to prolong debate but to require a supermajority for confirmation.