IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Connecticut elections , democratic party , joe lieberman , Ned Lamont

Reply
Old 9th August 2006, 07:20 AM   #1
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Strip Lieberman of Committee Assignments?

There is a call in the liberal blogosphere to treat Lieberman as a party outcast by stripping him of his committee assignments in the Senate. It looks like the mandarins of the Senate Dems will line up solidly with Lamont. But will they take the next step and treat him the way he's treating the Democratic voters of Connecticut -- as outsiders?

What if they do this and Lieberman wins anyway? Will he keep his promise to caucus with the Democrats? Will he keep his promise to caucus with the Democrats even if they don't do this? Will it help to elect Lamont if Lieberman is treated this way?
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 07:38 AM   #2
Charlie Monoxide
Wag
 
Charlie Monoxide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,760
Is Karl Rove going to help fund Lieberman's independent run?

Charlie (take your lost and go home) Monoxide
__________________
Major General Wag of JREF
Charlie Monoxide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 08:00 AM   #3
Mephisto
Philosopher
 
Mephisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,064
Maybe if Mel Gibson helped Lieberman's campaign?
__________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

Mahatma Gandhi
Mephisto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 11:34 AM   #4
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,819
How come Lieberman is hated so much? Wasn't he a Democrat Veep candidate just a few years ago?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 11:36 AM   #5
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
How come Lieberman is hated so much? Wasn't he a Democrat Veep candidate just a few years ago?
Because of the feeling that his running as an independant will split the vote and cuase the republican to win, as he lost the primary and is not the democratic canidate.

That seems to be why.

Yes he was VP canidate for the last two canidates I think.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 11:58 AM   #6
JamesDillon
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Because of the feeling that his running as an independant will split the vote and cuase the republican to win, as he lost the primary and is not the democratic canidate.

That seems to be why.
No, it isn't. No one is worried about the Republican winning, and the antipathy toward Liberman is not rooted in his running as an independent-- obviously, it existed prior to that decision or he wouldn't need to do that at all.

Quote:
Yes he was VP canidate for the last two canidates I think.
It's really a good idea to check basic assertions of fact that you're not sure about. Lieberman was not John Kerry's running mate. John Edwards was. Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate in 2000.
JamesDillon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 12:01 PM   #7
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414
That is an excellent point!

Lieberman should indeed be quite worried about his committee memberships since he was elected to them via the Democratic Senators and now that Lieberman is calling himself an Independent, he may have a good deal to worry about regarding his Senatorial duties.

I seriously doubt that he arranged with the other Senate Democrats to keep these assignments in the event that he changes parties.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 12:06 PM   #8
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by JamesDillon View Post
No, it isn't. No one is worried about the Republican winning, and the antipathy toward Liberman is not rooted in his running as an independent-- obviously, it existed prior to that decision or he wouldn't need to do that at all.
But is it for the same reasons that he lost the nomination? Did this call come before or after he lost the nomination? If it was only after why would it not be about that?

It is possible for multipal people to dislike you for different reasons.

Quote:
It's really a good idea to check basic assertions of fact that you're not sure about. Lieberman was not John Kerry's running mate. John Edwards was. Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate in 2000.
Ah. "I think" is not a clear endorsement of a fact. Here I thought it was a way to express being unsure of the statement.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 03:57 PM   #9
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Did this call come before or after he lost the nomination? If it was only after why would it not be about that?
He did threaten it a couple months ago. Then last night he carried through on that threat. The only reason he had to announce it in advance is that it would be known anyway, since he had to collect signatures to get on the ballot as an independent -- those petitions being due today. Otherwise, I don't think he would have said anything about the indy run before the primary election.

Now, the anger toward that isn't because of the possibility of the Republican being elected. It's just because some people don't like that Joe says he'd like Dems to nominate him, but if they don't, then their choice isn't good enough for him. It would have been more respectable to drop out of the Dem primary, and pursue the Independent campaign full force.

All my opinion.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 06:59 PM   #10
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
Nobody is going to remove Lieberman from committees out of spite. I imagine the Democratic leadership will look at each of his committee memberships and remove him only from those they think it would be advantageous of him to do so. He still votes with them 90% of the time and is unlikely to change his spots so quickly. Better to have a reliable Independent with seniority on your committee than an untested newcomer.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2006, 09:09 PM   #11
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
Nobody is going to remove Lieberman from committees out of spite. I imagine the Democratic leadership will look at each of his committee memberships and remove him only from those they think it would be advantageous of him to do so. He still votes with them 90% of the time and is unlikely to change his spots so quickly. Better to have a reliable Independent with seniority on your committee than an untested newcomer.
It's not a matter of spite or committee votes. They would do it for one or both of two reasons:

First, to lower Lieberman's prestige so as to help Lamont in the election.

Second, to underline that Lieberman is not a Democrat so as to blunt the harm he does by belting out Republican talking points against the party from the inside.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 04:31 AM   #12
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
There is a call in the liberal blogosphere to treat Lieberman as a party outcast by stripping him of his committee assignments in the Senate. It looks like the mandarins of the Senate Dems will line up solidly with Lamont. But will they take the next step and treat him the way he's treating the Democratic voters of Connecticut -- as outsiders?

What if they do this and Lieberman wins anyway? Will he keep his promise to caucus with the Democrats? Will he keep his promise to caucus with the Democrats even if they don't do this? Will it help to elect Lamont if Lieberman is treated this way?
From OpinionJournal yesterday:
Quote:

Here is Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, one of Lamont's most vocal backers, being less than magnanimous in victory:
Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent. . . . Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent.
Here's what we all need to do the next few days:
1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
3. Get all Democrats--including Bill Clinton--to publicly back Ned Lamont.
4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.

We can think of one very good reason Reid may not want to follow Moulitsas's advice and retaliate against Lieberman. Suppose the Democrats do win all contested Senate races on Nov. 7, and Lieberman beats Lamont in Connecticut. That would, as we said, give Democrats a 51-49 advantage in the Senate. In order to be elected majority leader, Reid would need every single Democratic vote--including Lieberman's.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 05:52 AM   #13
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
First, to lower Lieberman's prestige so as to help Lamont in the election.
Harry Reid would understand that having committee memberships pulled will not hurt his prestige in time for the election in November. Now, had they been pulled a year ago, it would make sense. Doing it now only makes the Dems look spiteful.

Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Second, to underline that Lieberman is not a Democrat so as to blunt the harm he does by belting out Republican talking points against the party from the inside.
I don't think you can underline Lieberman's not being a Democrat more than having him run as an Independent against a Democrat. Removing his committee memberships merely makes him an Independent against a spiteful Democractic party. If I were Lamont I would be urging Harry Reid to stay out of it.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 10:17 AM   #14
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
Harry Reid would understand that having committee memberships pulled will not hurt his prestige in time for the election in November. Now, had they been pulled a year ago, it would make sense. Doing it now only makes the Dems look spiteful.


I don't think you can underline Lieberman's not being a Democrat more than having him run as an Independent against a Democrat. Removing his committee memberships merely makes him an Independent against a spiteful Democractic party. If I were Lamont I would be urging Harry Reid to stay out of it.
First, let me say that I haven't formed an opinion about whether Reid should do this or not, or that the probable reasons for doing it would be effective.

I do think that many people will continue to perceive Lieberman as a Democrat, and frankly, if he were to win and still caucus with Democrats, that'd be at least a credible claim. Extra measures like stripping committee assignments, to force the point, would be quite dramatic. Effective in helping Lamont? Not sure. But, effective in narrowing Lieberman's ability to underme the party from within with Republican talking points? Definitely.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 12:12 PM   #15
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Effective in helping Lamont? Not sure. But, effective in narrowing Lieberman's ability to underme the party from within with Republican talking points? Definitely.
How do GOP talking points about Lieberman undermine the Democratic Party? I guess this is where I completely don't understand your argument.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 12:39 PM   #16
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,022
Kos doesn't run the Democrats in the senate.

Barbara Boxer likes him because he is so consistently pro-choice.

My conditional prediction: If Lieberman gets elected in November he will be taken back into the fold and retain all seniority.
Abdul Alhazred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 12:41 PM   #17
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
How do GOP talking points about Lieberman undermine the Democratic Party? I guess this is where I completely don't understand your argument.
Sorry for not being clear. I was not saying GOP talking points about Lieberman, but GOP talking points from Lieberman about the Democratic party, its voters and its candidates. They have long done significant harm to the Democrats, and the less he's perceived as a Democrat, the less harm done.

Here are some samples from today. One quote is from Dick Cheney and one is from Lieberman. Which is which? As long as people see a prominent Democrat spouting this dispicable rhetoric, it lends unnecessary credibility. Let people perceive Lieberman as the Republican that he is.

Quote:
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.
Quote:
The thing thatís partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 12:55 PM   #18
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Here are some samples from today. One quote is from Dick Cheney and one is from Lieberman. Which is which? As long as people see a prominent Democrat spouting this dispicable rhetoric, it lends unnecessary credibility.
Quote:
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.
Quote:
The thing thatís partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
I'll say the first one is Lieberman, but that;s beside the point. What I would like to know is what is "despicable" about these two statements? You may agree or disagree with them - I do not, and I guess you do - but why should someone be despised for holding those opinions? FWIW, I would guess that a great many people - perhaps even a majority - agree with those opinions. Are they to be despised also?

Is there no room in the Democratic party for someone who isn't utterly opposed to the Iraq war? Is it insufficient to object to the way it is being handled? Must one must be opposed to the mere fact of the war, or be anathema to right-thinking Democrats?
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:15 PM   #19
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
I'll say the first one is Lieberman, but that;s beside the point. What I would like to know is what is "despicable" about these two statements? You may agree or disagree with them - I do not, and I guess you do - but why should someone be despised for holding those opinions? FWIW, I would guess that a great many people - perhaps even a majority - agree with those opinions. Are they to be despised also?

Is there no room in the Democratic party for someone who isn't utterly opposed to the Iraq war? Is it insufficient to object to the way it is being handled? Must one must be opposed to the mere fact of the war, or be anathema to right-thinking Democrats?
You are right. The first is Lieberman's. I find it despicable to claim that this or that stance on the withdrawal from Iraq from an elected official or aspiring elected official emboldens the enemy. It's not just because I think it's factually incorrect, but the implication that our electorial process, which leads to hugely important decisions being made about our future, is beholden the perceptions of our enemies. Incidentally, I don't think that Lieberman even thinks it's true, making him a liar. Cheney might think it's true, but he's a friggin' lunatic.

None of this is about the existence of the war or the way it's being handled (about which I do also have opinions). It's about Lieberman's echoing of Cheney's, et al, long established talking-points that opposition to a war and the nature of its conduct emboldens the enemy. This is a device that attempts to quash all legitimate dissent.

I am not a "right-thinking" Democrat. All opinions expressed here are my own.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:20 PM   #20
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
I'll say the first one is Lieberman, but that;s beside the point. What I would like to know is what is "despicable" about these two statements? You may agree or disagree with them - I do not, and I guess you do - but why should someone be despised for holding those opinions? FWIW, I would guess that a great many people - perhaps even a majority - agree with those opinions. Are they to be despised also?

Is there no room in the Democratic party for someone who isn't utterly opposed to the Iraq war? Is it insufficient to object to the way it is being handled? Must one must be opposed to the mere fact of the war, or be anathema to right-thinking Democrats?
Well look at it this way, someone who broke with the party enough to run as an independant, what would the republicans do to punish such a person?
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:23 PM   #21
senorpogo
Master Poster
 
senorpogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well look at it this way, someone who broke with the party enough to run as an independant, what would the republicans do to punish such a person?
uh... buy him ice cream?
senorpogo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:25 PM   #22
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well look at it this way, someone who broke with the party enough to run as an independant, what would the republicans do to punish such a person?
Bob Smith (NH) did this in the presential race in 2000, then came back into the Republican fold. I don't remember what the Senate Republicans did about his committee assignments, but then the stakes for Republicans were miniscule as compared to what Lieberman means to Democrats. Bob Smith was a genial kook with little influence or national presense. He was defeated in a primary when his seat came up.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:25 PM   #23
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
See, whereas I see the idea that Democrats cannot disagree with one another on the conduct of the war, or express the rather unremarkable idea that withdrawal would embolden the enemy (a fact that we''ve seen when Israel has withdrawn from both Lebanon in the 1990's and from Gaza just last year).

Now, you might think that Lieberman is wrong and that there would be no emboldening of the enemy if we withdrew from Iraq. I think reasonable minds can disagree on that point.

But the idea that by expressing his view that he has abdicated his Democratic identity (despite agreeing with Democrats on pretty much every other piece of legislation before him) simple exploses the Democratic party to the "Big Tent-Little Tent" syndrome. (The Big Tent-Little Tent Syndrome was popular in the early 1990's when the Democratic Party, in an effort to show unity, refused to allow a pro-life Democratic governor to speak at the National Convention being held in his State. The GOP gleefully gave a slew of pro-choice Republicans a voice at the convention -- before promptly nominating only candidates firmly in the pro-life camp -- and then accused the Democrats of being close-minded and unwilling to hear conflicting views. The GOP called itself the "Big Tent" and compared it to the Democrats' "Little Tent")

An effort to purge its party of dissenters is likely to backfire, just as it did ten years ago. The Democratic Party should be big enough to encompass Joe Lieberman, even if his ideas on Iraq are anathema to the party faithful.

Bob Smith lost no committee assignments when he split form the party because the committees in which he sat were all committees on which he continued to agree with his GOP members, who very much needed every vote they could keep. Nobody shed a tear when he lost his seat, but he wasn't attacked by his colleagues. (And I remind you, that this happened in the heyday of Tom "The Hammer" Delay.)

Last edited by marksman; 10th August 2006 at 01:28 PM.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:36 PM   #24
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well look at it this way, someone who broke with the party enough to run as an independant, what would the republicans do to punish such a person?
Jim Jeffords in fact did do that, in Vermont. But there are some crucial differences:
  1. Jeffords decided he didn't like being a Republican any more, and left the party. They did not throw him out or vote him out. Lieberman's been voted out.
  2. Although Jeffords was a RINO (Republican In Name Only), there was no particular pressure on him to toe the party line; as I recall, they in fact made some political concessions to him in their unsuccessful attempt to keep him in the party.
  3. Jeffords lost his committee assignments IIRC, after he announced he was no longer a Republican. I don't believe Lieberman has made the equivalent statement - again, the Democratic voters dumped him, not vice-versa.
  4. Finally, Jeffords apparently made his decision expecting a Democratic majority in the coming elections, and wanted to be in line for some choice committee seats when the Dems took over congress. Didn't work out that way, but that's politics. Even if Lieberman wins in November, the Republicans aren't going to favor him over true Republicans for good committee slots.
The Republicans still have at least one RINO in the Senate - Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and he's up against some more conservative opposition in his primary. They also have moderates in the form of John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Rudy Giuliani, none of whom is in any danger of being drummed out of the party for heresy, and two of whom, in fact, are likely presidential candidates next time. All of this serves to sharpen the lines between the two parties, as the Dems move to the left. Whether the country follows remains to be seen.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 01:51 PM   #25
Jocko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,467
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
The Republicans still have at least one RINO in the Senate - Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and he's up against some more conservative opposition in his primary.
I don't think he's up this year, but Arlen Specter has got to take the Oscar for best performance for putting an (R) next to his name, too.
Jocko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 02:01 PM   #26
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
Ugh. The whole RINO phenomenon is the Big Tent-Little Tent theory in reverse. The Democratic Party should be big enough for Joe Lieberman. The Republicn Party should be big enough to accomodate Chafee, Jeffords and Specter.

If the parties have forgotton what conensus is all about, then maybe a centrist party (to be created by anybody other than wacky billionaires) really is needed.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 02:02 PM   #27
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by Jocko View Post
I don't think he's up this year,
Yeah, he is.
Quote:
but Arlen Specter has got to take the Oscar for best performance for putting an (R) next to his name, too.
True enough. Yet another Republican who doesn't follow the party orthodoxy. I guess Repubs aren't as pure in heart as Dems.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 02:05 PM   #28
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
Jim Jeffords in fact did do that, in Vermont. But there are some crucial differences:
The difference that matters is that Jeffords explicitly said, "I'm leaving the Republican party and caucusing with the Democrats," and in a non-election year. Lieberman is attempting to stay within his party in good graces while running against the Democratic nominee.

Quote:
The Republicans still have at least one RINO in the Senate - Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and he's up against some more conservative opposition in his primary. They also have moderates in the form of John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Rudy Giuliani, none of whom is in any danger of being drummed out of the party for heresy, and two of whom, in fact, are likely presidential candidates next time. All of this serves to sharpen the lines between the two parties, as the Dems move to the left. Whether the country follows remains to be seen.
There are plenty of centrist Democrats; they're not being hounded out. Only Lieberman. By the way, I like the use of the RINO acronym. Not the least bit exclusionary, eh? If the Republican voters of R.I. prefer someone else, then good for them.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 02:10 PM   #29
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
Ugh. The whole RINO phenomenon is the Big Tent-Little Tent theory in reverse. The Democratic Party should be big enough for Joe Lieberman. The Republicn Party should be big enough to accomodate Chafee, Jeffords and Specter.

If the parties have forgotton what conensus is all about, then maybe a centrist party (to be created by anybody other than wacky billionaires) really is needed.
It seems to me the parties are big enough to accommodate their centrists. Occassionally someone like Jeffords, or Richard Shelby of Alabama, feels to need to flee. And so be it. Based on how close the results were the other night, I honestly think that Lieberman would have won his primary if he hadn't hedged his bets by setting up the indy run. I wouldn't have been happy about it, but could accept the result and cheer for his reelection.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 03:18 PM   #30
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
I think they are, too, but I think silly labels like "RINO" and statements like "Let people perceive Lieberman as the Republican that he is" indicate that many people think the Republican and Democratic Parties should not be so accomodating... or so inclusive.
marksman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 03:35 PM   #31
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
I think they are, too, but I think silly labels like "RINO" and statements like "Let people perceive Lieberman as the Republican that he is" indicate that many people think the Republican and Democratic Parties should not be so accomodating... or so inclusive.
Touchť.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 07:37 PM   #32
corplinx
JREF Kid
 
corplinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,952
Remember Jim Jeffords? Methinks Joe Lieberman will be treated nicely by the majority just to screw the Dems back for that one.
corplinx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2006, 07:53 PM   #33
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,124
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
Jeffords decided he didn't like being a Republican any more, and left the party. They did not throw him out or vote him out. Lieberman's been voted out.
Well, for the sake of accuracy, that is not what happened. The Conn Dems did not select him as their nominee for the Senate seat. That's all. They did not vote him out of the Democratic Party and he didn't leave. Jeffords did, in fact, leave his party.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 05:25 AM   #34
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
There are plenty of centrist Democrats; they're not being hounded out.
We had this discussion already not so long ago. You were able to find only one Senate Democrat who was even arguably to the right of Lieberman (I forget who it was). Don't make me do that research again. Lieberman was averaging 75%-80% favorable ADA ratings, year after year. That's not liberal enough for the Democratic party any more, it would seem. At least not in Connecticut.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 05:26 AM   #35
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Well, for the sake of accuracy, that is not what happened. The Conn Dems did not select him as their nominee for the Senate seat. That's all. They did not vote him out of the Democratic Party and he didn't leave. Jeffords did, in fact, leave his party.
Fair enough; I should have written more precisely. The primary voters threw him out as their nominee for senator. They obviously did not throw him out of the party.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 06:19 AM   #36
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
We had this discussion already not so long ago. You were able to find only one Senate Democrat who was even arguably to the right of Lieberman (I forget who it was). Don't make me do that research again. Lieberman was averaging 75%-80% favorable ADA ratings, year after year. That's not liberal enough for the Democratic party any more, it would seem. At least not in Connecticut.
If you don't think that Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln or Ken Salazar are centrist Democrats, then I don't know how we'll ever have a meeting of the minds. Do you contend that Lieberman is the last centrist Democrat in the Senate? That all the others are leftists?
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 07:07 AM   #37
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
If you don't think that Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln or Ken Salazar are centrist Democrats, then I don't know how we'll ever have a meeting of the minds. Do you contend that Lieberman is the last centrist Democrat in the Senate? That all the others are leftists?
I told you not to make me do that research again. Here are the ADA ratings for 2002 - 2005 for your selected alleged Democrat moderates. The only one you can say is clearly to the right of Lieberman is Bill Nelson (he's from Nebraska, as "red" a state as there is in the union). I've calculated averages for each senator across the years, and for all the senators excluding Lieberman in each year, to show how Lieberman compares. The obvious conclusion is that he is squarely in the middle of that pack with his 77.5% favorable rating. Lieberman has voted the way the liberal ADA watchdogs like more than three-quarters of the time - 80% in the most recent year - but that isn't liberal enough for Connecticut.

BTW, I'm utterly mystified by your inclusion of Salazar as a "moderate." And if you think Blanche Lincoln is a moderate, you apparently have her confused with Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, whose ADA scores are more typically in the 30's and 40's, making him much more of a moderate.

Okay, let me ask you. If a 77.5% ADA rating over four years doesn't put you on the left, what does?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg senatedems.jpg (26.1 KB, 3 views)
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 07:41 AM   #38
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Well, for the sake of accuracy, that is not what happened. The Conn Dems did not select him as their nominee for the Senate seat. That's all. They did not vote him out of the Democratic Party and he didn't leave. Jeffords did, in fact, leave his party.
The issue is can you run agenst your party and still be a member of it.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 07:45 AM   #39
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
I told you not to make me do that research again. Here are the ADA ratings for 2002 - 2005 for your selected alleged Democrat moderates. The only one you can say is clearly to the right of Lieberman is Bill Nelson (he's from Nebraska, as "red" a state as there is in the union). I've calculated averages for each senator across the years, and for all the senators excluding Lieberman in each year, to show how Lieberman compares. The obvious conclusion is that he is squarely in the middle of that pack with his 77.5% favorable rating. Lieberman has voted the way the liberal ADA watchdogs like more than three-quarters of the time - 80% in the most recent year - but that isn't liberal enough for Connecticut.
And what is wrong with a party nominateing who it wants? A famous case of favoring an encumbant over a popular challenger that I can think of was when Teddy Rosevelt tried to get the rebuplican nomination again. And I understood that that event was why people who win primarys now win the nomination for president and the convention is not as likely to be more than a pep rally now.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2006, 08:07 AM   #40
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
I told you not to make me do that research again. Here are the ADA ratings for 2002 - 2005 for your selected alleged Democrat moderates. The only one you can say is clearly to the right of Lieberman is Bill Nelson (he's from Nebraska, as "red" a state as there is in the union). I've calculated averages for each senator across the years, and for all the senators excluding Lieberman in each year, to show how Lieberman compares. The obvious conclusion is that he is squarely in the middle of that pack with his 77.5% favorable rating. Lieberman has voted the way the liberal ADA watchdogs like more than three-quarters of the time - 80% in the most recent year - but that isn't liberal enough for Connecticut.

BTW, I'm utterly mystified by your inclusion of Salazar as a "moderate." And if you think Blanche Lincoln is a moderate, you apparently have her confused with Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, whose ADA scores are more typically in the 30's and 40's, making him much more of a moderate.

Okay, let me ask you. If a 77.5% ADA rating over four years doesn't put you on the left, what does?
As always, thanks for doing the research. Your dedication is awe-inspiring.

You have brought statistical evidence, for which I have the highest regard. I will not take the time to do counter research. But I ask you again: Is Lieberman the only centrist Democrat in the senate? Is that your conclusion?
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.