The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella...

 

 

Yeah the guy totally deserves preferential treatment after going to the RNC convention and talking trash about the Democratic nominee while talking up the GOP candidate and the grossly incompetent VP pick.

 

* Unless you think differently than what is accepted Democratic dogma. In other words, just like the Republicans, except for the PR stuff where we lie about accepting people who think differently.

[kapkomet]

Yeah the guy totally deserves preferential treatment after going to the RNC convention and talking trash about the Democratic nominee while talking up the GOP candidate and the grossly incompetent VP pick.

Wow. Some of you are getting your panties bunched up over this. I mean, the Democrat Party stands for everyone except "conservatives", right?

[Balta1701]

Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella...

"He's with us on everything but the war" - Harry Reid, 2006.

 

So, if he's not with us on our major international policy issues, he's not with us on our major domestic policy issue, what exactly is left that he's with us on?

[jasonxctf]

im not saying that Joe doesnt have the right to disagree. I think that Bayh, Nelson and Landrieu disagree too.

 

However, there are things that you do/say in public and things you do in private.

[Balta1701]

And there's things that you do when you're campaigning.

I've been working on health insurance reform for more than a dozen years. ... I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25.

 

MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have. Medical malpractice reform.

 

It will cover 95% of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others.

What I'm saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance.

-Joe Lieberman, 2006.

[lostfan]

Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella...

You've brought this up like 20 times, at every opportunity, the fact is nothing's happened to Lieberman even though he's not really a Democrat and he's only in the caucus because of the mutual benefit/convenience but has actually been pretty worthless.

[southsider2k5]

You've brought this up like 20 times, at every opportunity, the fact is nothing's happened to Lieberman even though he's not really a Democrat and he's only in the caucus because of the mutual benefit/convenience but has actually been pretty worthless.

 

Then they probably should quit b****ing about it, or quit acting like inclusiveness actually is true.

[lostfan]

Then they probably should quit b****ing about it, or quit acting like inclusiveness actually is true.

I didn't know Balta, jasonxctf, BigSqwert, and bmags were U.S. Senators.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't know Balta, jasonxctf, BigSqwert, and bmags were U.S. Senators.

 

I didn't know I was either...

[lostfan]

So what do you mean by "they"? This is not about "inclusiveness," it's really not that complicated. If "they" is Democratic voters, "they" are b****ing because Lieberman (among others) is holding something up they want to see passed. Lieberman in particular gets singled out because he's done this before, not everything he does makes much sense (if you look at his history of statements he appears to support the Dems' version of healthcare reform) and frankly he's a bit of an attention whore.

[Balta1701]

IOKIYAR.

[NorthSideSox72]

Disagree.

 

 

that's not true.

 

lol wut? Its not true I disagree? How strange.

 

[bmags]

lol wut? Its not true I disagree? How strange.

 

it's not true that Lemont had no chance in the GE. If he hadn't stayed mum for 3 weeks in october when Lieberman started to backtrack on war rhetoric it would have prevented a lot of the 20% migration from democrats.

[NorthSideSox72]

it's not true that Lemont had no chance in the GE. If he hadn't stayed mum for 3 weeks in october when Lieberman started to backtrack on war rhetoric it would have prevented a lot of the 20% migration from democrats.

I guess that is your opinion, but obviously the high level Dems decided otherwise, and I tend to agree with their assessment. Lamont wasn't going to win, unles Lieberman self-destructed somehow.

 

[bmags]

Then they probably should quit b****ing about it, or quit acting like inclusiveness actually is true.

 

There's a difference between voting up or down, and voting against cloture to prevent a vote on the bill your party has worked on.

 

In the Senate, 40 senators can threaten to fil-i-bust-er and they don't have to read a telephone book, they merely have to continually have someone in the senate as present, and this would kill a bill easily. So no, I don't care if Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson say "no" I have a problem if they don't allow their own party to vote on its own bill.

[bmags]

I guess that is your opinion, but obviously the high level Dems decided otherwise, and I tend to agree with their assessment. Lamont wasn't going to win, unles Lieberman self-destructed somehow.

 

The high-level dems only campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, after that everyone was kind of mum, but Clinton, for instance, helped the Lemont campaign.

[southsider2k5]

There's a difference between voting up or down, and voting against cloture to prevent a vote on the bill your party has worked on.

 

In the Senate, 40 senators can threaten to fil-i-bust-er and they don't have to read a telephone book, they merely have to continually have someone in the senate as present, and this would kill a bill easily. So no, I don't care if Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson say "no" I have a problem if they don't allow their own party to vote on its own bill.

 

The difference is technical only, really it is much worse, because he is putting the bill into a situation where he knows it will pass. At the end of the day, everyone is saying that Lieberman's duty as a Democrat is more important than his job as a Representative, which is insane. If he doesn't believe in a bill he knows he is going to vote against, why should he cast a vote that he knows will lead to its passage?

[bmags]

The difference is technical only, really it is much worse, because he is putting the bill into a situation where he knows it will pass. At the end of the day, everyone is saying that Lieberman's duty as a Democrat is more important than his job as a Representative, which is insane. If he doesn't believe in a bill he knows he is going to vote against, why should he cast a vote that he knows will lead to its passage?

 

because we live in a representative democracy that only recently has moved the bar from simple majority passing, to now 3/5s. The majority in 2 chambers plus another branch would pass this on straight up or down, but because a minority in one chamber, it shouldn't even be allowed to be voted on? That's not technicality.

[southsider2k5]

because we live in a representative democracy that only recently has moved the bar from simple majority passing, to now 3/5s. The majority in 2 chambers plus another branch would pass this on straight up or down, but because a minority in one chamber, it shouldn't even be allowed to be voted on? That's not technicality.

 

When you are talking about procedure, it is a technicality. Congress needs to address this, but until then, those are the rules. Are you honestly telling me that people should vote for a technicality when they know doing so will result in something they don't believe in?

[bmags]

When you are talking about procedure, it is a technicality. Congress needs to address this, but until then, those are the rules. Are you honestly telling me that people should vote for a technicality when they know doing so will result in something they don't believe in?

 

Then why ever vote no? Why ever vote? Sometimes you are going to be overruled when 100 people are voting on something, well, if ever they could be allowed to vote. The vote is the statement. Why look at voting records? Let's look at threats to make sure voting doesn't happen. That apparently is the key.

 

Hey, let's go to dinner.

Alright, where do you guys wanna go.

I've heard good things about this spanish food place

Oh, me too, sounds good.

I like Mexican.

Well let's take a vote.

No, I've already heard people express their vote against me, we shouldn't vote. Let's just not eat.

 

For one, I think the Senate filibuster is way too easy to enact, as opposed to the house, they don't have to do anything strenuous. It isn't Mr. Smith goes to washington.

 

But really, You arguing that I shouldn't be mad about a senator in the Dem caucus granted leadership positions that not just isn't giving his vote to what his caucus has worked on, but won't even let them vote on it. It's ridiculous.

[NorthSideSox72]

The high-level dems only campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, after that everyone was kind of mum, but Clinton, for instance, helped the Lemont campaign.

They weren't mum, they tacitly supported him. Do you think its because they liked him? No, they didn't campaign against him for the only logical reason - they knew it was highly likely that Lieberman would win. Clinton was respositioning and trying to make waves ahead of a Prez bid.

 

[lostfan]

When you are talking about procedure, it is a technicality. Congress needs to address this, but until then, those are the rules. Are you honestly telling me that people should vote for a technicality when they know doing so will result in something they don't believe in?

It wasn't intended to be that way. Bills are supposed to pass with a simple majority and a filibuster is only supposed to happen rarely. The threat of a filibuster alone is not supposed to kill a bill. It's not just a technicality, it's a full-blown broken system.

[southsider2k5]

Then why ever vote no? Why ever vote? Sometimes you are going to be overruled when 100 people are voting on something, well, if ever they could be allowed to vote. The vote is the statement. Why look at voting records? Let's look at threats to make sure voting doesn't happen. That apparently is the key.

 

Hey, let's go to dinner.

Alright, where do you guys wanna go.

I've heard good things about this spanish food place

Oh, me too, sounds good.

I like Mexican.

Well let's take a vote.

No, I've already heard people express their vote against me, we shouldn't vote. Let's just not eat.

 

For one, I think the Senate filibuster is way too easy to enact, as opposed to the house, they don't have to do anything strenuous. It isn't Mr. Smith goes to washington.

 

But really, You arguing that I shouldn't be mad about a senator in the Dem caucus granted leadership positions that not just isn't giving his vote to what his caucus has worked on, but won't even let them vote on it. It's ridiculous.

 

I noticed you answered the question with another question.

 

Not to mention, the idea of a representative Democracy has two different meanings depending on who you ask. Some people believe you are elected to do what 50% +1 of your constituents want. The other side believes that they elected you to use your judgment on what is best for the people you represent, and the country as a whole.

 

And if everyone is going to call for the guy's head for voting what he really feels, then you and everyone who believes that, needs to quit all of the BS about the party of inclusion and broader coalition than the Republicans, because last I saw, no one was calling for Snowe to be stripped of everything she has earned.

 

[southsider2k5]

It wasn't intended to be that way. Bills are supposed to pass with a simple majority and a filibuster is only supposed to happen rarely. The threat of a filibuster alone is not supposed to kill a bill. It's not just a technicality, it's a full-blown broken system.

 

Then they need to fix the system. In the meantime, how pissed can you get about people doing exactly what is available to do. People do it all of the time. Heck our own President was going to take the government funding for his Presidential race, but as soon as he saw he would have a significant advantage by not doing so. He went back on his word, and something according to him, felt was broken about the system, and did it anyway.

[Rex Kickass]

Because Lamont wasn't going to be able to win, and half a senator is better than no senator.

 

Results of the 2006 CT Senate race

 

Lieberman 564,095

Lamont (D) 450,844

Schlessinger ® 109,168

 

I really really doubt Lieberman peeled 350,000 more votes away from Schlessinger than he did from Lamont in that election. Joementum did some cold calculus that since the party establishment didn't support Lamont, and that since the Dem party had a shot at taking back the Senate in 2006, they weren't going to invest money in a race where the winner was voting with our caucus regardless.

 

Schlessinger was always a non factor, that's why Lieberman became Sore Loserman and ran a second time when he didn't like the results the first time.

 

Personally, I think that Lieberman could stay in the caucus for all I care, but if you specifically obstruct the main policy goals of your party consistently, you don't belong in any leadership position within the party. You become a leader in the party, by developing seniority in your chamber and also by being a good representative for your caucus.

 

Given that Lieberman lied to his supporters about the kind of policies he supported in 2006, and given that Lieberman hasn't supported the party's goals nearly fully enough, the time has come to relegate him to the back bench that he deserves.