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?
bzzzzzt! wrong.Joe Lieberman
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!! wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! (Sheesh...)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...
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt!!!!!!!!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.
I just love the revisionist history of right-wing "conservatives", don't you?
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.
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"?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.
Oh Lambykins: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.
Still waiting . . . .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.
Last edited: