http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent. Do you feel there's any significance to this particular election in your mind?
Other than the fact that I'm in Florida and I have a choice of Katherine Harris or Nelson? What a crappy choice I got here. Neither are very palitable.
Why yes, I do. While Lieberman is a life long democrat, Republicans have supported him during his campaign when democrats turned their back on him. This is in part, because Lieberman is a traditional democrat (one that actually has morals and values) and hasn't let the hatred of liberals who have infested the party like cockroaches in a mobile home, guide his ideological beliefs. He is, what the democrat party used to be. That the democrap party is turning their backs on Lieberman because he is a moderate with a voice of reason is telling about where the party is going. The party needs more voices like Lieberman, not less. With more voices like his, the party has a much better chance of portraying themselves in line with the American people. There wouldn't need to be a mad rush to redefine an angry liberal terrorist sympathizing candidate by moving to centrist values, they would actually have centrist values. With more voices like his, democrats and republicans could work better together to make America better. But all they have to offer is: Those are magnificent accomplishments To listen to earl pearl and a few other liberals talk about "voting party line" is sort of humorous when we look at the real facts
It will be real interesting to see what happens....but I don't believe you can relate the specifics of this race to the rest of the country. There were some analyses done after the Connecticut primary where comments were made that the ultra left/blogger side of the Democratic party focused on Lieberman but didn't similarly address other Democrats in office that are not to the extreme left. I think they pointed out that the Blogger/ultra left side didn't address Hillary Clinton and possibly others. So it is probably a state by state phenomena. I've liked Lieberman since he was the first Democrat to call out Clinton on his morals after the Monica Lewinsky episode. That was leadership in that circumstance. Besides the War issue, while pretty thoroughly Democratic he holds some less lefty more middlish stances on other issues. It appears the Republican candidate is very weak in Connecticut so it is an election between two versions of a blue (somewhat lefty) Senator---very very very Deep Blue or sort of purplish--though probably much more blue on most issues besides the Iraq war issue. As far as this statement; the article made an interesting point about voting the party line. What is the source. What I get from the article is that till this year the Democrats have not acted in this manner as much as Republicans--especially during the Delay years. Having done so this year it seems to be working for Democrats. That would be an interesting thing to look out over many years--how often and at what percentage do Republicans vote the "party line" as Democrats and also how does it break down between the House and Senate. Frankly, the overwhelming party line voting by both parties probably is less effective for responsable governing and more conducive to crappy policy that is party influenced. From the article, it sounds to me like the Republicans started it!!
It might be worth nothing that "lock step" party line voting of the other side in the future I can't say I recall any particular liberal or "left leaner" here ever talking about voting on the side of, or taking the side of a republican led issue. The general impression I get (others feel free to chime in here) is that if it's republican led, no matter what the issue, liberals here are against it. Think about it, when's the last time any liberal down here in the dungeon has said "yeah, that's a policy I feel Bush is right on?" Things that make ya go "hmmmm."
Where did the article quote come from that cited 88% Democrat party line voting? It would be interesting to see how each party stacks up in that regard over time and also by Senate and House. I'd bet over time fewer and fewer members of either party cross over to vote with the other side. Retired members of both houses and from both parties are very unhappy with current levels of partisanship. It would be interesting to see how parties have voted over time.
Here's that whole thing. It's in a wet dream piece about Pelosi http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376213,00.html Probably is the case. I think back in the day, party line votes weren't nearly as common, especially under Reagan where democrats had both house and senate and Reagan still got most of what he wanted pushed through. Anyone remember Patrick Moynihan (?) (democrat) - he advocated SS reform and welfare reform WAY before it became an actual issue. Others too.
Wow she sounds tough. A Democratic female version of Delay. No wonder the House is so Partisan--two incredibly partisan leaders. (he basically ran it when he was in office and it appears his style continues).