The Dems aren't purging in the same sense that the Repubs are, but when you issue veiled threats about losing your chair for not going with the party, that seems to be a bit of a purge to me.
Well, jchem, in the real world, where rational people live, politicians who consistently break their promises to their colleagues in significant ways; who (a) undercut their own party's senatorial candidate because getting re-elected to the Senate is more important than supporting the party; who (b) consistently vote with Republicans despite nominally caucusing with the Democrats; (c) who actually campaign and then vote for the Republican candidate for President; (d) who not only actually campaign and then vote for the Republican candidate, but make public speeches questioning the Democratic candidate's patriotism and saying that the Democratic candidate is a national security risk and would put the country in danger; (e) who then go crawling to Democratic Party leaders after the Democratic candidate wins the presidency, lobbying to retain their plum position as chair of one of the two or three most prestigious committees in the Senate (despite the fact of not even being a Democrat and despite the fact of having campaigned for the Republican candidate); who (f) then actually are granted their request and allowed to keep their powerful position -- a privilege that is not normally given to party members who consistently vote for the other party's candidates and against their own party's platform but is given in this case because party leaders are counting on this individual's vote on the most important policy on the Democratic agenda; (g) who allows his party's leaders to believe that he will be a reliable vote on that legislation; and who (h) then tells Democratic leaders, when a bill is just about ready to be put on the floor, that he cannot support it because of one specific provision, and that he will support a Republican filibuster to defeat the bill:
What do you expect?
And keep in mind also, jchem, that if Lieberman simply wanted to stand on principle, he could vote against the bill on the Senate floor. But that's not what he's threatening to do, is it? He is literally saying that he will stop the bill from even getting to a floor vote, by refusing to be the 60th vote needed to end a Republican filibuster.
But tell me again how it's a purge that the Democratic Party might be reluctant to let Joe Lieberman keep his chair of the Homeland Security Committee, which is given to valuable and experienced members of the majority party, after they let him do that once following a betrayal, and then he betrays them again? That is not a purge, jchem -- that is something called consequences. Lieberman can do what he wants but he cannot continue forever to get everything for nothing by screaming that he's being purged. Human affairs not to mention politics just doesn't roll that way.
dduck12
· 1 month ago
"And keep in mind also, jchem, that if Lieberman simply wanted to stand on principle, he could vote against the bill on the Senate floor. But that's not what he's threatening to do, is it? He is literally saying that he will stop the bill from even getting to a floor vote, by refusing to be the 60th vote needed to end a Republican filibuster."
Like, both parties don't do this.
JSpencer
· 1 month ago
"Like, both parties don't do this."
And that is relevant to the point how?
dduck12
· 1 month ago
The point is they all do it. Don't point at Liberman, he didn't invent the tactic.
roro80
· 1 month ago
Actually, dduck12, I'd love it if you could illuminate me on when this has ever happened before -- on either side. By "this", of course, I mean, particularly what you have in quotes. A single (or small handfull) of members of the majority party crossing over to strenthen the fillibuster of the minority party. Not just going against their party on the vote, but keeping the vote from happening. I'm fairly certain that that's never ever happened before. By all means, if this is so terribly common an occurance, just one example, please, to prove me wrong.
dduck12
· 1 month ago
I spoke in error. I did not mean party crossovers. I meant holding up a vote with a filibuster. I stand, actually sit, corrected and chastised.
Funny how the more he feels relevant the more I feel he is irrelevant...........
jchem
· 1 month ago
Kathy, a few posts ago, you wrote about ideological purity within the GOP. You wouldn't be looking for some ideological purity within your own party now would you? You should tone down your insults as well; anybody who actually has ADD might see your slight as a slap in the face.
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
Oh, give me a break, jchem. You're comparing Joe Lieberman, a senator for what? 30 years? one of the most powerful people in the Senate, to DeDe Scozzafava? Dede Scozzafava has the power to lead Republicans around by the nose? When the Republican far right faithful genuflect and do handsprings and somersaults to keep Dede Scozzafava in the Party, then you can make some sort of comparison between what Republicans do to moderates in their Party, and what Lieberman is doing to the Democrats. And that's the point. It's Lieberman that's trying to destroy the Democratic Party's centerpiece legislation after the Democratic leadership gave him concession after concession just to avoid this outcome. I mean, this is actually the total opposite of what Republicans are doing in purging their party of moderates. Give me a break. Obama and Democrats in Congress desperately trying to curry favor with Blue Dogs to get their cooperation on health care? Give me a break! When was the last time John Boehner or Michele Bachmann tried to curry favor with anyone in their party one inch to the left of them?
I'm really fed up with this false equivalency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.
jchem
· 1 month ago
You give me a break, Kathy. Nowhere in my comment to you am I raising anything having to do with the New York race. I don't live there, so it doesn't matter to me. It just seems to me that you have a pretty good time pointing out how the Repubs are dysfunctional, or how they say stupid things, or how they are trying to purge themselves of the moderates. Yet you do the same things with those in your party who you don't agree with. You haven't had anything positive to say about Lieberman, and if I remember correctly, you haven't been very fond of the Blue Dogs holding up this healthcare legislation. I mean, I get the idea that your idea of compromise ends with the 51-vote nuclear option.
We had this same discussion on a previous thread. You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis. Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.
I'm really fed up with your lack of consistency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
It just seems to me that you have a pretty good time pointing out how the Repubs are dysfunctional, or how they say stupid things, or how they are trying to purge themselves of the moderates. Yet you do the same things with those in your party who you don't agree with.
And Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates.... how? I'm supposed to "balance" any statement about Republicans trying to purge their party of moderates with an independent clause adding that Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates -- even though they're not?
You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis.
In fact, Republican tactics with regard to ideological purity are reminiscent of Stalinist tactics. As I suggested in that other post, we can use the word "totalitarian" if you prefer it to "Stalinist," but the point is the same.
Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.
Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?
Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.
jchem
· 1 month ago
And Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates.... how? I'm supposed to "balance" any statement about Republicans trying to purge their party of moderates with an independent clause adding that Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates -- even though they're not?
The Dems aren't purging in the same sense that the Repubs are, but when you issue veiled threats about losing your chair for not going with the party, that seems to be a bit of a purge to me. Others could call it blackmail, or buying a vote.
Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?
Ah yes, my magic 'rule book'. I just think it's a bit dishonest to point your finger at the stupidity of the Repubs but never notice it in your own party. You do an excellent job on almost a daily basis of telling me why I should not support Repubs; however, you never give me any reasons why I should actually support your party, other than the Dems aren't as insane as the Repubs. That's very comforting...
Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.
Good thing we have Disqus, which keeps a record of comments. Feel free to dig through all of mine and show me how I'm some sort of crazed ideologue.
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
" I just think it's a bit dishonest to point your finger at the stupidity of the Repubs but never notice it in your own party. "
Remember, Jchem..... Kathy is an ultra-liberal - no logic is required. When the other side does something, it is a travesty of justice. When her side does the same thing, they must have been victimised and didn't have a choice.
Sounds like the typical utlra-liberal approach to me.
(no offense intended to my other true intellectual liberal brothers and sisters out there who actually use logic and call both sides like they should)
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
"I mean, this is actually the total opposite of what Republicans are doing in purging their party of moderates."
Just watch what happens when the DNC refuses to support the Blue Dogs that have fettered the "mandate" liberal agenda in 2010. The democrats want the blue dog vote in Congress, but they won't stand for their actual input in legislation.
Scozzafava and Lieberman are, indeed, VERY different individuals. You are correct about that, Kat. However, their situations within their parties (not backing them for ideological reasons) is EXACTLY the same.
Don Quijote
· 1 month ago
You wouldn't be looking for some ideological purity within your own party now would you?
STAMFORD The Connecticut for Lieberman Party, the minor political party created by Sen. Joe Lieberman for his successful independent bid for re-election, has been taken over by a longtime critic of the senator.
Fairfield University political science professor John Orman's takeover has been recognized by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz.
Orman is the sole member of the party and filed paperwork with Bysiewicz's office naming himself chairman. The state officials accepted Orman's takeover and his bylaws which limit membership to critics of the senator and anyone named Lieberman.
ROTFLMAO...
dduck12
· 1 month ago
Agreed. KK, are you paying "attention"?
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
Are you?
dduck12
· 1 month ago
I'm trying.
TheMagicalSkyFather
· 1 month ago
I think you guys are missing the problem with purity tests. Purity tests are a problem for a party in an election they may lose without a moderate. Purity tests have never been considered a problem in areas where one party holds enough voting power to have a pretty good lock on the election at the end of the primary. For Lieberman to win he made a lot of promises that he has broken first and he also pulled some Dem and some Bush voters to beat the DEM candidate(thats the other part about purity that you are missing he is not a Dem). In my view leave Nelson and the rest alone they are blue dogs doing their best to earn their blue dog street cred. If Lieberman wants to run fine, but he will run against a Dem and I doubt this time will work out near as well. I still think he will not block this legislation though, that would be a fast track to losing his coveted homeland security chair and AIPAC would not be happy.
Will Johnston
· 1 month ago
I had thought Lieberman was typically relatively liberal on domestic issues and more conservative on foreign policy ones. Looks like he has changed his tune.
dduck12
· 1 month ago
Example for moderates: Is Bloomberg a Dem., a Rep. or a Ind? Is Chavez a Comm. a Nat. or a socialist? Who cares, they both violated their oaths of office and abused their powers. Lieberman is in the gray area of politics, even though Reps and Dems sometimes revile him. Who knows, but many people are tired of the lemmings that only follow their party's line no matter what. I personally, threw away my vote this afternoon (according to my wife) and did NOT vote for the better candidate, Bloomberg, because he violated the spirit of the term-limits law that I had voted for.
JSpencer
· 1 month ago
I agree that Lieberman has become an attention seeker. Maybe he picked up a taste for it back when he was a VP pick? Unfortunately his self-admiration seems to have eroded much of his good sense. The fact that Harry Reid vouches for him is hardly reassuring.
All Comments
Well, jchem, in the real world, where rational people live, politicians who consistently break their promises to their colleagues in significant ways; who
(a) undercut their own party's senatorial candidate because getting re-elected to the Senate is more important than supporting the party; who
(b) consistently vote with Republicans despite nominally caucusing with the Democrats;
(c) who actually campaign and then vote for the Republican candidate for President;
(d) who not only actually campaign and then vote for the Republican candidate, but make public speeches questioning the Democratic candidate's patriotism and saying that the Democratic candidate is a national security risk and would put the country in danger;
(e) who then go crawling to Democratic Party leaders after the Democratic candidate wins the presidency, lobbying to retain their plum position as chair of one of the two or three most prestigious committees in the Senate (despite the fact of not even being a Democrat and despite the fact of having campaigned for the Republican candidate); who
(f) then actually are granted their request and allowed to keep their powerful position -- a privilege that is not normally given to party members who consistently vote for the other party's candidates and against their own party's platform but is given in this case because party leaders are counting on this individual's vote on the most important policy on the Democratic agenda;
(g) who allows his party's leaders to believe that he will be a reliable vote on that legislation; and who
(h) then tells Democratic leaders, when a bill is just about ready to be put on the floor, that he cannot support it because of one specific provision, and that he will support a Republican filibuster to defeat the bill:
What do you expect?
And keep in mind also, jchem, that if Lieberman simply wanted to stand on principle, he could vote against the bill on the Senate floor. But that's not what he's threatening to do, is it? He is literally saying that he will stop the bill from even getting to a floor vote, by refusing to be the 60th vote needed to end a Republican filibuster.
But tell me again how it's a purge that the Democratic Party might be reluctant to let Joe Lieberman keep his chair of the Homeland Security Committee, which is given to valuable and experienced members of the majority party, after they let him do that once following a betrayal, and then he betrays them again? That is not a purge, jchem -- that is something called consequences. Lieberman can do what he wants but he cannot continue forever to get everything for nothing by screaming that he's being purged. Human affairs not to mention politics just doesn't roll that way.
Like, both parties don't do this.
And that is relevant to the point how?
I stand, actually sit, corrected and chastised.
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php
I'm really fed up with this false equivalency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.
We had this same discussion on a previous thread. You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis. Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.
I'm really fed up with your lack of consistency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.
And Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates.... how? I'm supposed to "balance" any statement about Republicans trying to purge their party of moderates with an independent clause adding that Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates -- even though they're not?
You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis.
In fact, Republican tactics with regard to ideological purity are reminiscent of Stalinist tactics. As I suggested in that other post, we can use the word "totalitarian" if you prefer it to "Stalinist," but the point is the same.
Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.
Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?
Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.
The Dems aren't purging in the same sense that the Repubs are, but when you issue veiled threats about losing your chair for not going with the party, that seems to be a bit of a purge to me. Others could call it blackmail, or buying a vote.
Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?
Ah yes, my magic 'rule book'. I just think it's a bit dishonest to point your finger at the stupidity of the Repubs but never notice it in your own party. You do an excellent job on almost a daily basis of telling me why I should not support Repubs; however, you never give me any reasons why I should actually support your party, other than the Dems aren't as insane as the Repubs. That's very comforting...
Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.
Good thing we have Disqus, which keeps a record of comments. Feel free to dig through all of mine and show me how I'm some sort of crazed ideologue.
Remember, Jchem.....
Kathy is an ultra-liberal - no logic is required.
When the other side does something, it is a travesty of justice.
When her side does the same thing, they must have been victimised and didn't have a choice.
Sounds like the typical utlra-liberal approach to me.
(no offense intended to my other true intellectual liberal brothers and sisters out there who actually use logic and call both sides like they should)
Just watch what happens when the DNC refuses to support the Blue Dogs that have fettered the "mandate" liberal agenda in 2010. The democrats want the blue dog vote in Congress, but they won't stand for their actual input in legislation.
Scozzafava and Lieberman are, indeed, VERY different individuals. You are correct about that, Kat. However, their situations within their parties (not backing them for ideological reasons) is EXACTLY the same.
Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is the founding member of the Connecticut For Lieberman party.
AP: Sen. Lieberman's Party Taken Over By Critic
ROTFLMAO...
Who cares, they both violated their oaths of office and abused their powers. Lieberman is in the gray area of politics, even though Reps and Dems sometimes revile him. Who knows, but many people are tired of the lemmings that only follow their party's line no matter what. I personally, threw away my vote this afternoon (according to my wife) and did NOT vote for the better candidate, Bloomberg, because he violated the spirit of the term-limits law that I had voted for.