The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Dede Scozzafava

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:03:47 -0000

The “get out of Iraq now” and "Bush lied" crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster.

Well, I agree with your argument that the party out of power moves more toward the other party&#39s positions when they get into power (although this did not happen with Bush -- he moved us farther to the right), but I don&#39t necessarily accept your premise that the reason for the shift is that Obama realized getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. I think it&#39s more that realities of power politics in Washington, D.C., make it very difficult to do that, and he&#39s picking his battles. Plus, we have a signed agreement with Iraq to be out of there completely by-- whatever date it is, I forget-- August 2011? So he can diddle with the interim dates, but not the final one.

So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I&#39ll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

Well, from my pov, of course, I hope they do. :-)

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:33:13 -0000

Again, I don’t think you can use a quote from one right-wing blogger to prove your point about the Republican party in general, just as I can’t use a quote from a left-wing blog to paint the Democrats with a broad brush. Regarding Palin, she ran for VP with McCain, someone widely regarded as a moderate. So I think it’s more accurate to say that Palin doesn’t feel that Scozzafava is in the same category as McCain (ie. “not moderate”) rather than to say that she doesn’t tolerate moderates. I don&#39t know enough about Scozzafava to know if Palin is right, but it seems just as plausible are your case that Leiberman is "not moderate".

Secondly, I find it very hard to believe that a long-time independently-minded senator like Lieberman would write a blank check to the Democratic party and agree to support their bill unconditionally before it was even written, but if you have evidence that that’s what he agreed to I’d reconsider. It’s more likely that he agreed to support the effort for health care reform in general, but in the end the bill turned out more left that he expected.

Thirdly, I’m feeling less-than-motivated to continue arguing for what could be considered a defense of the Republican party. That’s not my intent. So, let me try to make a concession: Yes, the rhetoric on the right has been more extreme than on the left. But it seems to me it’s mostly just that: a rhetorical shift, not as much an ideological shift. In that sense, I would agree with Andrew that this is common among parties out of power, just as the far left did under Bush. The “get out of Iraq now” and "Bush lied" crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I&#39ll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:03:47 -0000

Well, I agree with your argument that the party out of power moves more toward the other party's positions when they get into power (although this did not happen with Bush -- he moved us farther to the right), but I don't necessarily accept your premise that the reason for the shift is that Obama realized getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. I think it's more that realities of power politics in Washington, D.C., make it very difficult to do that, and he's picking his battles. Plus, we have a signed agreement with Iraq to be out of there completely by-- whatever date it is, I forget-- August 2011? So he can diddle with the interim dates, but not the final one.

So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

Well, from my pov, of course, I hope they do. :-)

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:33:13 -0000

Secondly, I find it very hard to believe that a long-time independently-minded senator like Lieberman would write a blank check to the Democratic party and agree to support their bill unconditionally before it was even written, but if you have evidence that that’s what he agreed to I’d reconsider. It’s more likely that he agreed to support the effort for health care reform in general, but in the end the bill turned out more left that he expected.

Thirdly, I’m feeling less-than-motivated to continue arguing for what could be considered a defense of the Republican party. That’s not my intent. So, let me try to make a concession: Yes, the rhetoric on the right has been more extreme than on the left. But it seems to me it’s mostly just that: a rhetorical shift, not as much an ideological shift. In that sense, I would agree with Andrew that this is common among parties out of power, just as the far left did under Bush. The “get out of Iraq now” and "Bush lied" crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

DLS — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:18:56 -0000

"far right"

On this lefty site, as uttered by lefties (when they aren&#39t just clueless and spouting words and phrases they know nothing about, like terms of logical fallacies they routinely misuse, while committing all manner of such fallacies) --

"far right" = anybody to the right of Barbara Boxer or the many lefties on this site

"Bonus" distance points (to rightward) if they criticize weak or bogus Republicans

Re: Dede Scozzafava

DLS — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:16:13 -0000

What&#39s overdue is intelligent querying. Why is she now endorsing a Democrat? Is it disgusting RINO behavior, Never Question Big Government (that is, is she aping Rockfeller and the worst that the Empire State Plaza as well as state government in Albany signify in her own state), it is just bitterness at losing the race (and bitterness at outside interests who interfered), or is it robotic Duopoly-adherence?

Any and all likely answers are unflattering, if not downright disgusting.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

DLS — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:18:56 -0000

"far right"

On this lefty site, as uttered by lefties (when they aren't just clueless and spouting words and phrases they know nothing about, like terms of logical fallacies they routinely misuse, while committing all manner of such fallacies) --

"far right" = anybody to the right of Barbara Boxer or the many lefties on this site

"Bonus" distance points (to rightward) if they criticize weak or bogus Republicans

Re: Dede Scozzafava

DLS — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:16:13 -0000

What's overdue is intelligent querying. Why is she now endorsing a Democrat? Is it disgusting RINO behavior, Never Question Big Government (that is, is she aping Rockfeller and the worst that the Empire State Plaza as well as state government in Albany signify in her own state), it is just bitterness at losing the race (and bitterness at outside interests who interfered), or is it robotic Duopoly-adherence?

Any and all likely answers are unflattering, if not downright disgusting.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:50:37 -0000

AD, we don&#39t have to guess at how a right-winger would describe Scozzafava. She&#39s a "radical left-winger." That shows you the difference right there. No human being in their right mind would think Scozzafava is a "radical left-winger." And no right-winger would describe her as "not moderate" in relation to the rest of the party. Right-wingers do not think of themselves as "moderate." Their whole thing is that they want the party to follow the farthest right voices among them. "Moderate" is not a compliment to the Republicans who wanted Scozzafava out of the race.

And it doesn&#39t matter that Lieberman didn&#39t promise specifically to support "a public option." He committed to supporting the Democrats&#39 legislation on health care reform. He didn&#39t say, "except if it has a public option." He didn&#39t say, "No health care reform at all is better than health care reform with a public option." Furthermore, the point is moot anyway because Lieberman also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not even have a public option.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:33:02 -0000

I still think the situation with Lieberman and Democratic party is very similar to the situation with Scozzafava. I think a right winger (the counterpart to your self-confessed left wing position) would probably describe Scozzafava&#39s positions as "not moderate in relation to the rest of the [Republican] party" also, so I don&#39t see much difference except for perspective. I also don&#39t think Lieberman ever promised, either explicitly or implicitly, that he would support a public option in return for the forgiveness he received from the party, so I don&#39t buy your "back-stabber" argument.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:50:37 -0000

AD, we don't have to guess at how a right-winger would describe Scozzafava. She's a "radical left-winger." That shows you the difference right there. No human being in their right mind would think Scozzafava is a "radical left-winger." And no right-winger would describe her as "not moderate" in relation to the rest of the party. Right-wingers do not think of themselves as "moderate." Their whole thing is that they want the party to follow the farthest right voices among them. "Moderate" is not a compliment to the Republicans who wanted Scozzafava out of the race.

And it doesn't matter that Lieberman didn't promise specifically to support "a public option." He committed to supporting the Democrats' legislation on health care reform. He didn't say, "except if it has a public option." He didn't say, "No health care reform at all is better than health care reform with a public option." Furthermore, the point is moot anyway because Lieberman also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not even have a public option.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:33:02 -0000

I still think the situation with Lieberman and Democratic party is very similar to the situation with Scozzafava. I think a right winger (the counterpart to your self-confessed left wing position) would probably describe Scozzafava's positions as "not moderate in relation to the rest of the [Republican] party" also, so I don't see much difference except for perspective. I also don't think Lieberman ever promised, either explicitly or implicitly, that he would support a public option in return for the forgiveness he received from the party, so I don't buy your "back-stabber" argument.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:21:24 -0000

You&#39re fine, AD, as far as any "appropriateness" of your comment as a response to my post. However, as I indicated in my other reply to you, Joe Lieberman is not at all a good example of a "double standard" with regard to pushing moderates out of the party. For the reason I gave above, but also because Lieberman is simply not a "moderate" in relation to the rest of the Democratic party. The GOP leadership -- the mainstream of the party -- has become a narrowly ideological party catering to the most extreme right-wing voices in the party. Political and social positions that deviate in the slightest from the "party line" are demonized. This is something one simply cannot accurately and truthfully say about the Democratic Party.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:08:59 -0000

"adelinesdad, Is there a reason that you&#39re trying to hijack this thread from one about Dede Scozzafava to one about Joe Lieberman?"

The thread is about the Republican party pushing out moderates. As Kathy implied, the race itself is not that interesting; what Kathy (almost wrote "she", sorry Kathy:)) found interesting was the Republican reaction. I won&#39t speak for Kathy, but it seems to me Kathy would agree with me that the thread is not so much about Dede but about the perceived exclusions of moderates in the GOP.

While I mentioned that I agree with Kathy&#39s general point, I think pointing out a double-standard is relevant and is not a hijack. My comment does relate to the post as a whole, it specifically relates to the quote from Andrew:

"What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls."

When one considers examples of the Democratic party doing the same, it calls that logic into question. Therefore, I stand by my comment as relevant to the current topic.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

Rudi — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:13:40 -0000

[quote][quote]lnmvkhgcv[/quote][/quote]

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0000

You're fine, AD, as far as any "appropriateness" of your comment as a response to my post. However, as I indicated in my other reply to you, Joe Lieberman is not at all a good example of a "double standard" with regard to pushing moderates out of the party. For the reason I gave above, but also because Lieberman is simply not a "moderate" in relation to the rest of the Democratic party. The GOP leadership -- the mainstream of the party -- has become a narrowly ideological party catering to the most extreme right-wing voices in the party. Political and social positions that deviate in the slightest from the "party line" are demonized. This is something one simply cannot accurately and truthfully say about the Democratic Party.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

adelinesdad — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:08:59 -0000

"adelinesdad, Is there a reason that you're trying to hijack this thread from one about Dede Scozzafava to one about Joe Lieberman?"

The thread is about the Republican party pushing out moderates. As Kathy implied, the race itself is not that interesting; what Kathy (almost wrote "she", sorry Kathy:)) found interesting was the Republican reaction. I won't speak for Kathy, but it seems to me Kathy would agree with me that the thread is not so much about Dede but about the perceived exclusions of moderates in the GOP.

While I mentioned that I agree with Kathy's general point, I think pointing out a double-standard is relevant and is not a hijack. My comment does relate to the post as a whole, it specifically relates to the quote from Andrew:

"What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls."

When one considers examples of the Democratic party doing the same, it calls that logic into question. Therefore, I stand by my comment as relevant to the current topic.

Re: Dede Scozzafava

rudi — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:13:40 -0000

[quote][quote]lnmvkhgcv[/quote][/quote]

Re: Dede Scozzafava

archangel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:39:39 -0000

hi there, going to ask all to stay on the topic. Opinions about TMV writers stop now.

thanks.
dr.e

Re: Dede Scozzafava

kathykattenburg — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:57:48 -0000