A Tea Party Win in Delaware

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah? . . . democrats . . . have seen that they can be rooted out of their own party and be forced to run as independents.
Really? Can you give us some recent examples of any note?
Joe Lieberman
bzzzzzt! wrong.

You really can't have already forgotten Joe Lieberman, now, can you? The man who was the Dem Party's VP nominee 10 years ago,....and how/why was he forced to declare himself as an "I"? Sheesh...
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!! wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! (Sheesh...)

Have you forgotten that he was a Democrat and even the DEMOCRATIC nominee for vice-president before he was pushed out of the party for his stand on the Iraq war.

Democrats cannot stand independent thinkers.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!!!!!

I just love the revisionist history of right-wing "conservatives", don't you? :rolleyes:

First of all Lieberman doesn't qualify, because he (theoretically) switched his party affiliation four years ago, which is hardly "recent". In fact, he never did change his affiliation, he only filed as an 'Independent' candidate for political gain and to preserve his senate seat after he lost the Democratic primary, where he was rejected by the voters, not by the party. He consequently ran as an 'Independent' to grab the centrist vote and secure reelection in the general election, receiving substantial support from the Republican leadership and Republican voters (70%) and such notable figures as Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, to name a couple among many who recognized that a Republican win in Connecticut was impossible and cynically put their bets on the dark horse.

He was also supported by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, so no surprise that ignoramuses who get their "news and information" from such sources would think he was forced out of the party. Despite his support of John McCain's presidential run and his appalling speech at the 2008 Republican convention, he has in fact not been drummed out of the party. He is, in fact, still a registered Democrat officially listed in Senate records as an "Independent Democrat", he retains his Democratic chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and sits on the Foreign Relations committee as well as several others, including chairing several subcommittees. He continues to caucus with the Democrats in congress, and incidentally has the lowest approval rating of any sitting Senator.


In my personal opinion, "Joementum" Lieberman is a self-important, self-absorbed little prick and an attention whore with a Napoleonic complex. He delights in his status being the 'wrench in the works' of petty power politics and the overblown attention he receives from both sides of the aisle and from the media. If it were up to me, I would strip him of his committee and subcommittee chairmanships and kick his whiney ass to the curb. I guess the Dems have a bigger tent than I would if I ran the circus.

Seriously, this is the best example you guys can come up with? Cool how you undermined your own argument.

Next. :cool:

And as to my words on any Dem not voting with the party being considered a pariah, here is a headline from March that shows the approach of the administration to those in its own party that don't toe the line: Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform.
Choosing who a sitting president will campaign for is a common political calculation made by all presidents of either stripe, and there are many factors to consider beyond party loyalty. That's a far, far cry from withholding any support at all from a candidate who fails to demonstrate strict adherance to the party line, financial or otherwise, as spelled out in the following resolution passed by the Republican National Committee. You know, the one you denied existed, while accusing the Democrats of demanding adherance to party "purity"?

Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party.
:rolleyes: Oh Lambykins:
RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARTY SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES:

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have recently supported primary or special election candidates who professed allegiance to the Republican Party but who, as their circumstances changed and to serve their own interests, turned against the Republican Party and became or supported a candidate of another party; and
WHEREAS, many Republican leaders and Republican organizations were undermined and lost credibility as a result of the actions of such candidates; and
WHEREAS, there will be many more decisions regarding the support of candidates, and many more opportunities to enhance or diminish the credibility of Republicans and Republican organizations, in the coming election cycle; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges its leadership and the leadership of all Republican organizations to carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans and who desire the support of Republican leaders and Republicans organizations, and determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted at the 2008 National Convention; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges that no support, financial or otherwise, be given to candidates who clearly do not support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted in the 2008 National Convention.
As approved by the Committee on Resolutions, January 28, 2010.
I'd be fascinated to see a resolution or any document from the Democrats that compares with this in any way.

Your turn. :cool:
Still waiting . . . .
 
Last edited:

DevonTexas

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Posts
1,579
Media
151
Likes
19,117
Points
543
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
OMG this is the woman (O'Donnell) who wants to outlaw masturbation. Have I died and gone to hell? I cannot be the only American who is socially liberal and fiscally, foreign policy and militarily conservative.

To quote a movie from the 80's... I weep for the future.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
bzzzzzt! wrong.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!! wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! (Sheesh...)


bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!!!!!

I just love the revisionist history of right-wing "conservatives", don't you? :rolleyes:

First of all Lieberman doesn't qualify, because he (theoretically) switched his party affiliation four years ago, which is hardly "recent". In fact, he never did change his affiliation, he only filed as an 'Independent' candidate for political gain and to preserve his senate seat after he lost the Democratic primary, where he was rejected by the voters, not by the party. He consequently ran as an 'Independent' to grab the centrist vote and secure his reelection in the general, receiving substantial support from the Republican leadership and Republican voters (70%) and such notable figures as Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, to name a couple among many who recognized that a Republican win in Connecticut was impossible and cynically put their bets on the dark horse.

He was also supported by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, so no surprise that ignoramuses who get their "news and information" from such sources would think he was forced out of the party. Despite his support of John McCain's presidential run and his appalling speech at the 2008 Republican convention, he has in fact not been drummed out of the party. He is, in fact, still a registered Democrat officially listed in Senate records as an "Independent Democrat", he retains his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and sits on the Foreign Relations committee as well as several others, including chairing several subcommittees. He continues to caucus with the Democrats in congress, and incidentally has the lowest approval rating of any sitting Senator.


In my personal opinion, "Joementum" Lieberman is a self-important, self-absorbed little prick and an attention whore with a Napoleonic complex. He delights in his status being the 'wrench in the works' of petty power politics and the overblown attention he receives from both sides of the aisle and from the media. If it were up to me, I would strip him of his committee and subcommittee chairmanships and kick his whiney ass to the curb. I guess the Dems have a bigger tent than I would if I ran the circus.

Seriously, this is the best example you guys can come up with?

Next. :cool:

Choosing who a sitting president will campaign for is a common political calculation made by all presidents of either stripe, and there are many factors to consider beyond party loyalty. That's a far, far cry from withholding any support at all from a candidate who fails to demonstrate strict adherance to the party line, financial or otherwise, as spelled out in the following resolution passed by the Republican National Committee. You know, the one you denied existed, while accusing the Democrats of demanding adherance to party "purity"?

:rolleyes: Oh Lambykins:

Still waiting . . . .

Damn Max. You're good. But yes when the news doesn't fit the narrative you just change the news. Fox News does it all the time. By the way you DO know that Obama is responsible for TARP and all those bank bailouts? They are rewriting history in recent political ads puting TARP under Obama. Un-fucking believable.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Wait? Democrats can't stand independent thinkers? What the living fuck is Ben Nelson still doing in the party? Flip the coin, and Ben Nelson would have been run out of the Republican party 10 years ago. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the only moderate Republicans left in the Senate- and I can't even think of a moderate House Republican. Don't tell me they can't stand independent thinkers. Dianne Feinstein? Blanche Lincoln?

Don't forget Lincoln Chafee- he was run out way back in 2006, right? The days of the Nelson Rockefellers and Barry Goldwaters are OVER
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Is America going to vote against extremism? I am not so sure. Their wins make me very concerned...the extremists should not be winning at all.

The most frightening thing about all these "incumbent" upsets is that it seems ANGRY Americans would blindly vote for "anyone" to replace the establishment -- regardless of their creditials. It looks like Father Guido Sarducci would have a fighting chance at the Presidency with this attitude!!

And Paul Paladino wins the Republican Primary in NY. Absolutely astounding.
In some ways, this makes the choice in November an obvious one for Democrats, moderates or anyone with a rational brain. But you have to wonder just how many folks have been duped by this phony-ass "anger message" being generated by some people from the extreme right.

Christine O’Donnell is another joke. Once a spokesperson for abstinence on a "Sex In the 90s" special on MTV, she ran a campaign where she constant referred to her opponent as being gay like that's supposed to mean anything bad. Is this the best you can do from the Conservative camp these days?

Yep. The Republican Party always counted on the intolerant racist whackos to win. Now they've broken off to form their own racist intolerant party. Now HOW can the Republican Party win now?

Of Paladino the NYTimes reports:
The result was a potentially destabilizing blow for New York Republicans. It put at the top of the party’s ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally’s comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to “an Antichrist or a Hitler

Sorry to ask this, but as a Brit it's been hard getting my head around the Tea Party movement. What is it exactly? And what are the pros and cons of its views?

I've read it's a movement for fiscal responsibility - and basically seems like a bunch of rich ppl campaigning for less state interference and more economic freedom (especially from environmental concerns), along with a sounder federal budget?; but is it a lot more complicated than that?

Also, is it mainly composed of Republicans, er...or not?

Thanks. :)

Thanks Gym.

Ahh...oh dear. Sounds like hard-right Conservatives, with extra bigotry thrown in (plus moral outrage?). 'Big business is best, and socialism or helping the poor/environment is a devilish nightmare destined to end in ruin'?

Hmmm - I got the idea Obama was more fiscally aware than Bush, although the health-care reforms seem hugely expensive (but necessary?). Slashing taxes for the rich seems unfair and unwise - the UK Tories promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold so ultra-rich didn't have to pay that much, altho that seems to be quietly dropped from the agenda.

I agree with a certain amount of rolling back the State (as it became unsustainably bloated over here under Labour), but moderate taxes for everyone, and a relatively moderate welfare system, seem like the best balance.

OMG this is the woman (O'Donnell) who wants to outlaw masturbation. Have I died and gone to hell? I cannot be the only American who is socially liberal and fiscally, foreign policy and militarily conservative.

To quote a movie from the 80's... I weep for the future.

...as America trudges ever farther to the far right.

All the above indicative if either something still sickly twisted and festering in the minds of too many, OR, too many voters still not having a "fucking clue", imo.

No doubt, a combination of both.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
You know it's gotten kinda scary out there when progressives long for the days of Barry Goldwater...

The thinking conservative is long gone. Newt Gingrich has recently lost it big time.
Harry Reid tweets Lady Gaga while Newt Gingrich is truly gaga.

The 67-year-old former speaker, who has a talent for overreaching, is more unbridled than ever. He’s decided he’ll do or say anything to stay in the game — even Palin-izing himself by making outrageous, unsubstantiated comments to appeal to the wing nuts among us.
---
He has given a full-throated endorsement to a dangerously irresponsible and un-Christian theory by Ann Coulter-in-pants Dinesh D’Souza

Who’s the Con Man?



Meanwhile back in old Europe absent the 24 hr Faux News Fixed News fraudcast:

Survey: Obama Retains Wide Approval in Europe
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lurker37160

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
526
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
248
Location
Murfreesboro (Tennessee, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The most frightening thing about all these "incumbent" upsets is that it seems ANGRY Americans would blindly vote for "anyone" to replace the establishment -- regardless of their creditials. It looks like Father Guido Sarducci would have a fighting chance at the Presidency with this attitude!!


Just like then did when they voted for Obama.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Fiorina has absolutely NO shot. Trust me. She's too conservative for California. Anti choice, anti gay marriage, anti environmental protections
Really. I wouldn't assume that at all, and I never say never. As a politico and longtime resident of the state I seem to remember a pretty conservative Republican named Pete Wilson, who was governor for eight years and before that a US Senator for eight years. I know it was a little before your time, but you might be interested in his bio, since he started his political career as mayor of your hometown. Knowing the man personally, and having stood nose to nose with him on more than a couple of occasions, I'm going to suggest you skip his Wiki entry, which is essentially a puff piece, and do some independent research into his time in office. BTW, if you think Gray Davis was dull, ol Pete had about as much charisma as a slice of cold dry toast.

I also seem to remember a recall campaign which replaced a perfectly competent and pragmatic Democratic governor with an movie action hero fairly recently. Isn't this also the same state that elected Randy "Duke" Cunningham? He was from a district right next door to you, wasn't he? Currently you're surrounded by the likes of Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa, Dana Rohrabacher, not to mention Duncan Hunter, the junior. Sorry if I don't share your confidence in the progressive politics of California voters or take anything for granted.

There are as of now a total of nine senate races where tea party aligned candidates have beaten the Republican establishment sponsored candidate. The sum of all the polling I've seen with likely voters indicates they are all currently in a virtual dead heat with their Democratic challengers in the general election, and some have a slight edge. Of course, that doesn't even take into account the number of Republican establishment backed candidates running. It's all going to come down to whether Obama stays in campaign mode, rallies the troops and pulls from the middle, but mostly as I say, it's simply going to come down to voter turnout.

Turnout in the Delaware primary was very light, around 24% of eligible voters, 32% for Republicans, 12% for Democrats. That does not bode well. The right wing is energized and motivated, and apathetic Democrats and moderates are either too busy whining or asleep. At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference how ridiculous or extreme we think some of these candidates are, if we don't muster the votes to defeat them. The real threat is not from the Teabaggers, it is from progressive and moderate complacency. If you want to make sure Fiorina (and Whitman) don't win in California, you and your friends better go to work to get out the vote. At the end of the day, your one little vote and your predictions and opinions aren't going to count for shit.

You know it's gotten kinda scary out there when progressives long for the days of Barry Goldwater...
I like the kinder, gentler Barry G who emerged and grew wiser as he aged. He definitely left his party in the dust, especially as they began to really regress starting in the 80's.
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Damn Max. You're good. But yes when the news doesn't fit the narrative you just change the news. Fox News does it all the time. By the way you DO know that Obama is responsible for TARP and all those bank bailouts? They are rewriting history in recent political ads puting TARP under Obama. Un-fucking believable.
Thanks Sargon, but I can't take all the credit. Ya know, all the factual information is readily, freely, quickly available online for anyone interested. Amazing thing these internets - if one keeps an open mind and bothers to look for the truth, eh?

Just like then did when they voted for Obama.
Meanwhile, Lurker continues his campaign of pointless irrelevancies.
 
Last edited:

v32bone

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
354
Media
17
Likes
110
Points
288
Location
Inland Empire, CA
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male

LambHair McNeil

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
488
Age
34
The latest polling on HCR shows that Calls to repeal the health care reform law passed by President Obama were favored by just 32 percent of the public. Hardly a stinging rebuke of HCR.

There are a vast array of polls on the subject, and most of them that are out there have a range of 52 - 63 % saying they want at least some portion of HCR repealed. As always, it depends on the sampling and the question formation. If it were as low as your link suggests, I would think you'd find Dems lining up to trumpet their votes on the plan...not literally refusing to mention it.

Dems nationwide do seem to be acting, for the most part, in a manner described by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the CBO, as (paraphrased) politicians who know the voters as a whole don't like HCR and thusly are working hard to change the conversation to something else. Exact words found here.

WRONG. Republicans would have attacked the Democrats no matter what they passed.

Perhaps you're right. My point is that the so-called blue dogs held all the cards. If they had forced the Left to bend, lest they watch their dream of HCR completely die, they would have also forced the hands of the Right to do more than (as Nancy Reagan once said) "just say no".

If you wanted HCR that both sides could have voted for, then both sides would have had to be able to criticize it to some degree.

But, in the larger game of Righties and Lefties playing well together, all we've done is continue the same play from the past few years but with different actors.

First of all Lieberman doesn't qualify, because he (theoretically) switched his party affiliation four years ago, which is hardly "recent". In fact, he never did change his affiliation, he only filed as an 'Independent' candidate for political gain and to preserve his senate seat after he lost the Democratic primary, where he was rejected by the voters, not by the party.

The game of politics has been going on for over 225 years in this nation. And going back 4 years isn't "recent" enough for you? Wow, I apologize. Let me crash the wires and see if something happened last night that might be a bit more timely for your benefit.

As for JL gaming the system, there has been a lot done for political gain by pols in recent times. Did you rail against it when Specter switched formal allegiance in 4/09 and laid the groundwork for Dems getting their 60-vote block in the Senate (once Franken was seated)? Or does it only max out the stink quotient when it hurts the side you like better?

...he has in fact not been drummed out of the party. He is, in fact, still a registered Democrat officially listed in Senate records as an "Independent Democrat", he retains his Democratic chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security...

:rolleyes: Oh yes, he's still officially a registered Dem and all that - no questions on that point. Filibustering on his list of assignments isn't addressing what I said earlier today: I'd imagine you can lay all the credit for him still being a caucusing Dem at the feet of being on the verge of a super-majority of seats after E.N. 2008 moreso than anything else. I doubt that Harry Reid and the Dems would have given a damn about Joe Lieberman's party affiliation if they'd been sitting on, say, 54 or so seats won. Having one more Dem in that instance makes little potential difference. Magic numbers, though, make for strange bed fellows and the difference between a caucusing Dem and a cussed-at Dem.

And, oh Maxxy, the echo chamber loves your style but (w/o the extra colors & crown molding) this is what I said: Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party.

Hmmm, don't think I said the Dems followed a public document of any sort. I don't know that they have anything scratched out on a cocktail napkin. Like the late Sen. Stevens, you're building a bridge to nowhere on me. As to actual discipline, it probably flows in the form of having someone like Rahm Emanuel drop a couple hundred f-bombs on you should you get out of line...and then someone threatens your state/district's pork list.

My point was that, when in power, (Senate, especially) Dems have more purity of vote than do the republican party. After all, on anything close in the Senate, Dems might have to worry about Lieberman or Nelson wandering off the reservation. Repubs, when in power during the 00's, at different times and on diff bills had to worry about McCain, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Voinovich, Specter, Smith...yea, being majority whip was a full-time job even if Congress was only part-time.

As to conservative senate democrats, the Zell Millers and John Breauxs are long gone, unfortunately.


The thinking conservative is long gone.

Going back - who do you credit as being thinking conservatives? BTW, I'm cool if you go back 4+ years.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really. I wouldn't assume that at all, and I never say never. As a politico and longtime resident of the state I seem to remember a pretty conservative Republican named Pete Wilson, who was governor for eight years and before that a US Senator for eight years. I know it was a little before your time, but you might be interested in his bio, since he started his political career as mayor of your hometown. Knowing the man personally, and having stood nose to nose with him on more than a couple of occasions, I'm going to suggest you skip his Wiki entry, which is essentially a puff piece, and do some independent research into his time in office. BTW, if you think Gray Davis was dull, ol Pete had about as much charisma as a slice of cold dry toast.

I also seem to remember a recall campaign which replaced a perfectly competent and pragmatic Democratic governor with an movie action hero fairly recently. Isn't this also the same state that elected Randy "Duke" Cunningham? He was from a district right next door to you, wasn't he? Currently you're surrounded by the likes of Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa, Dana Rohrabacher, not to mention Duncan Hunter, the junior. Sorry if I don't share your confidence in the progressive politics of California voters or take anything for granted.

There are as of now a total of nine senate races where tea party aligned candidates have beaten the Republican establishment sponsored candidate. The sum of all the polling I've seen with likely voters indicates they are all currently in a virtual dead heat with their Democratic challengers in the general election, and some have a slight edge. Of course, that doesn't even take into account the number of Republican establishment backed candidates running. It's all going to come down to whether Obama stays in campaign mode, rallies the troops and pulls from the middle, but mostly as I say, it's simply going to come down to voter turnout.

Turnout in the Delaware primary was very light, around 24% of eligible voters, 32% for Republicans, 12% for Democrats. That does not bode well. The right wing is energized and motivated, and apathetic Democrats and moderates are either too busy whining or asleep. At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference how ridiculous or extreme we think some of these candidates are, if we don't muster the votes to defeat them. The real threat is not from the Teabaggers, it is from progressive and moderate complacency. If you want to make sure Fiorina (and Whitman) don't win in California, you and your friends better go to work to get out the vote. At the end of the day, your one little vote and your predictions and opinions aren't going to count for shit.

I like the kinder, gentler Barry G who emerged and grew wiser as he aged. He definitely left his party in the dust, especially as they began to really regress starting in the 80's.

Gray Davis was a tool. Didn't have any balls. Asshat decided to bomb the Republican primary so that Richard Riordan was beaten by Bill fucking Simon.....and then almost lost. That tells you how unpopular Davis was- he almost lost to Bill Simon- who was a teabagger long before there were tea baggers
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really. I wouldn't assume that at all, and I never say never. As a politico and longtime resident of the state I seem to remember a pretty conservative Republican named Pete Wilson, who was governor for eight years and before that a US Senator for eight years. I know it was a little before your time, but you might be interested in his bio, since he started his political career as mayor of your hometown. Knowing the man personally, and having stood nose to nose with him on more than a couple of occasions, I'm going to suggest you skip his Wiki entry, which is essentially a puff piece, and do some independent research into his time in office. BTW, if you think Gray Davis was dull, ol Pete had about as much charisma as a slice of cold dry toast.
:rolleyes: Born and raised in San Diego- of COURSE I know who Pete WIlson was. He didn't become conservative until he left the City itself and won the Senate- he wanted the GOP nomination for Prez. He was pretty moderate as San Diego mayor. We've never had a chance to discuss our backgrounds together, but believe me- my father was VERY well connected with the local GOP establishment- which included Pete Wilson.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
The game of politics has been going on for over 225 years in this nation. And going back 4 years isn't "recent" enough for you? Wow, I apologize. Let me crash the wires and see if something happened last night that might be a bit more timely for your benefit.
Four years is a lifetime in politics these days, but that was beside the point, as I said. This is nothing but a stupid deflection from having your ass handed to you on a platter with cheese, lightweight. Pointless sarcasm noted too. You've completely ignored the main point and the fact that I just totally annihilated your contention that Joe Lieberman was "rooted" out of the Democratic party and "forced to run as an Independent". Not only that, but I proved he is still very much a Democrat and always has been, if a very bad one, which not only disproves your contention, it proves the opposite is true - that the Democrats by nature and in practice are much more diverse and accepting of differing points of view within their ranks by far than their goosestepping Republican counterparts. Any idiot knows that, which makes you one or more of three things: an idiot, a liar, and/or a complete partisan hack.

Can we get back to your point?
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?

After all, republican "moderates" are loved because they're willing (quite often) to spit in the eyes of the leaders of their own party and vote with the left, while democrats who take a stand on their personal morals and hock phlegm in the same manner have seen that they can be rooted out of their own party and be forced to run as independents.
Forget the Dems, let's talk about the Party of No who has spent the past year and half locked arm in arm as a solid wall of resistance to the passage of any legislation whatsoever, even on isssues they (used to) support. What do you have to say to that, genius? LMFAO!

As for JL gaming the system, there has been a lot done for political gain by pols in recent times. Did you rail against it when Specter switched formal allegiance in 4/09 and laid the groundwork for Dems getting their 60-vote block in the Senate (once Franken was seated)? Or does it only max out the stink quotient when it hurts the side you like better?
Now that's ironic. What the hell does any of that have to do with the debate? It's just another stupid deflection from having your stupid point disproven and having your ass handed to you. Still waiting for you to show me one example of any Democrat of note who was forced out of the party for not toeing the line, and heck, I'll give you 10 years if you think 4 is too recent, but please, not some obscure race for town constable in Bumfuck, Kansas, okay? [And you can give up trying to be clever, you're not very good at it.]

:rolleyes: Oh yes, he's still officially a registered Dem and all that - no questions on that point. Filibustering on his list of assignments isn't addressing what I said earlier today: I'd imagine you can lay all the credit for him still being a caucusing Dem at the feet of being on the verge of a super-majority of seats after E.N. 2008 moreso than anything else. I doubt that Harry Reid and the Dems would have given a damn about Joe Lieberman's party affiliation if they'd been sitting on, say, 54 or so seats won. Having one more Dem in that instance makes little potential difference. Magic numbers, though, make for strange bed fellows and the difference between a caucusing Dem and a cussed-at Dem.
What the hell are you talking about? Your thicket of lameass deflections and absurd hypotheticals have nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the debate or your stupid, stupid premise. Sorry, but I'm not following you in there. Let's stick with reality, if you can. [p.s. So . . . if, as you say, there's "no question" he's still a registered Democrat, I guess that kinda blows your contention that he was "rooted out" of the party, n'est ce pas?]

And, oh Maxxy, the echo chamber loves your style but (w/o the extra colors & crown molding) this is what I said: Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party.
[Emphasis added, Max.] But they did do it Blanche, they di - yud! IN A FORMAL RNC RESOLUTION NO LESS!!!
And the Dems did not, do not, have not done any such thing, formally or infomally. Stop deflecting, and show me the goddam evidence, buster! And no, factually baseless partisan spin and talking points do not constitute evidence.

Hmmm, don't think I said the Dems followed a public document of any sort. I don't know that they have anything scratched out on a cocktail napkin.
(Deflection.) But the Repubs sure do, don't they sweetie? More than a cocktail napkin, a formal resolution in fact, that demands everybody toe the party line. Please show me any evidence that the Dems follow the same straight line. The thing is you can't, because they don't, because THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. Yours is an army of lockmind, lockstep authoritarians, and the Dems are a loose bunch of free wheeling, free thinking dreamers who can't even agree on what song to dance to.

Like the late Sen. Stevens, you're building a bridge to nowhere on me. As to actual discipline, it probably flows in the form of having someone like Rahm Emanuel drop a couple hundred f-bombs on you should you get out of line...and then someone threatens your state/district's pork list.
Rahm Emanuel? F-bombs? Pork??? Man, you are just in deflection heaven, aren't you babe? I have no earthly idea what point you're trying to make, but please leave poor Ted Stevens out of it. He just crossed his bridge to nowhere. Let the dead rest in peace.

My point was that, when in power, (Senate, especially) Dems have more purity of vote than do the republican party.
PROVE IT!

After all, on anything close in the Senate, Dems might have to worry about Lieberman or Nelson wandering off the reservation. Repubs, when in power during the 00's, at different times and on diff bills had to worry about McCain, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Voinovich, Specter, Smith...yea, being majority whip was a full-time job even if Congress was only part-time.
You know what? I think you've wandered off the reservation, if not the planet. [Okay, let me add one more choice to my list. You're one or more of the following: idiot, liar, partisan hack, and/or completely delusional.]
I think we're done here.

As to conservative senate democrats, the Zell Millers and John Breauxs are long gone, unfortunately.
As am I, Lambykins sweetie, as am I. Welcome to my virtual ignore list of irrelevant, disingenuous and pointless partisan hacks, liars and cheaters, who are incapable of sticking to the point and carrying on an honest debate.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Do O'Connell wants to outlaw masturbation. She claims masturbation is adultery according to the Bible. Her hubby must have gorgeous hands. Maybe she should put down the Bible and jerk him off occasionally if she is so worried about him "cheating" on her.

(I don't even know if she's married, truthfully, but what in the world are people thinking?)


No, according to her best friend from Catholic church and growing up in S. New Jersey (Ms O'D is something of a carpetbagger, among other things), Christine humbly accepts that marriage does not seem to be in "the Lord's plan" for her. She's still open to it, and anything else God chooses to toss her way, but as I understand it she's not holding her breath. Still, she may get wooed and courted now that she's a famous Tea Baguette.
 

ravenx

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
513
Location
usa
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The Tea Party is kind of like moral majority 2.0.

They claim that what they care about are taxes and economics, yet it seems like >90% of their membership is comprised of racist homophobic bible thumpers.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No, according to her best friend from Catholic church and growing up in S. New Jersey (Ms O'D is something of a carpetbagger, among other things), Christine humbly accepts that marriage does not seem to be in "the Lord's plan" for her. She's still open to it, and anything else God chooses to toss her way, but as I understand it she's not holding her breath. Still, she may get wooed and courted now that she's a famous Tea Baguette.

Naw. I think she's a lesbian.
 

LambHair McNeil

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
488
Age
34
No, Mr. Olbermann, it's hard to have a debate with you that you'd accept, that much is true. I don't scream in the same range as you do.

Four years is not irrelevant especially since the impetus behind Lamont's success in the primary was the anti-war drumbeat for a war we are still fighting. Dems, including Bill Clinton, all lined up and tried to tell Lieberman not to run in the general, even though they had access to the same polling data he did indicating he could win in it over Lamont. I.E., Joe, you've lost, you've supported the war, we don't, the candidate that feels the way we do won, that's our party line, now get out.

Tom Daschle lost his job in 2002 by leading the Dems in a game of obstructionism against Bush. In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, the public didn't care for it and repubs ended up gaining seats in that election when, historically, they should have lost them. However, when today's polling data indicates that the public isn't behind the health care bill, isn't behind card check, wants illegal immigration stopped, is opposed to cap-and-trade, etc, the result isn't that they're going to punish republicans by voting even more of them out of office but, instead, elect a whole hell of a lot more of them to attempt to checkmate Obama. He ran in 2008 as a post-partisan, centrist democrat. When January 2011 arrives, we'll get to see more of the pol he told everyone he wanted to be. As far as parties believing in things from the past, I thought delving into long-ago examples of what went on wasn't relevant to the current news cycle?

Specter might be many things but he wasn't a deflection. Since what Lieberman did in 2006 could be summed up as "the opportunism of Joe Lieberman", in saving his political skin, I wondered aloud about examples of other pols attempting to do just that and (when it happens) if how it helps or hurts the Dem party influences in any way the way in which its spun. The bitter attacks on JL versus the 'way to go Arlen' examples of the recent past show it's all relative. And, btw budee, you can still be a registered democrat but have your party leave you, not the other way around. JL obviously believed the same things in 2006 that he did in 2000, but who was trying to throw whom out?

Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it.........But they did do it Blanche, they di - yud! IN A FORMAL RNC RESOLUTION NO LESS!!!

:rolleyes: Apparently you haven't checked the news on that in a while. Republicans reject purity test As the link says, the man who wrote the much-loved "purity test", James Bopp, agreed to withdraw his resolution when faced with overwhelming opposition and throw his support behind the watered-down language, which instead of a formal "test" of which a candidate had to meet 8/10 criteria to receive backing/funding, it only "urges" such consideration.

If you're hanging your hat on that, then I guess you'll hang it anywhere.

Prove it? lol...I'm not your bing or your google, either. Think what you will and let us lying, cheating, egotistical, hypocritical, authortarian bigots get back to destroying the nation. It's a full time job. :rolleyes:

As to being welcomed to your "virtual ignore list of irrelevant, disingenuous and pointless partisan hacks, liars and cheaters", is there really any other kind of list worth being on? Thanks for the membership. You do seem like the sort that would have one of those. Oh Waiter...for our seating tonight an echo chamber will do nicely, thaaanks. But, of course, you don't know I said this...as..I'm..on your virtual ignore list. (which will prob prove to be as effective as our virtual wall on the border)

It's been fun but all for now.