Posted on 04/16/2005 4:54:25 AM PDT by paltz
I'd rather have an honest Democrat -- say a Zell Miller or Ben Nelson -- than a two-faced Republican in my camp any day.
It depends on what kind of litmus test your are applying to your IDEOLOGICAL dominance. McCain has a lifetime rating from the ACU of 83, which makes him a conservative in my mind. He won relection in 2004 with 76% of the vote. Bush won AZ with 55% of the vote in 2004 with Kerry getting 44%. McCain represents his constituency.
I'd rather have an honest Democrat -- say a Zell Miller or Ben Nelson -- than a two-faced Republican in my camp any day.
People in Hell would like ice water. A Zell Miller or a Ben Nelson are rare animals indeed. I would still prefer a Rep in place of Ben Nelson. NUMERICAL superiority is important in running the Senate and determing what the legislative agenda is. When Jeffords converted we found out again how painful it is to have the Dems running the show and controlling the committees. If you think that we have problems confirming judges now, think how many would come out of the Judiciary committee if Leahy was back as chairman.
So it doesn't matter what the person's principles are as long as he can put "R" behind his name?
It is the Dems who have the litmus tests and prevent the airing of opposing views internally. They are starting to learn their lesson after so many losses. Look for Casey (Pro-life) to give a real challenge to Santorum.
Impotence arises (!) not only from numerical inferiority, but from ideological weakness. When your "colleagues" can't be counted on to lend their shoulder to the wheel when the effort is needed most -- say in the case of the fili-buster being considered in the Senate -- then it doesn't matter how many of them you have in the traces. It only matters that they're lame.
Political dominance is as much a matter of moral authority as it is numerical advantage. Sellout opportunists like Hagel, McCain, et. al. represent no political principle except compromise, which is, by definition, no principle at all.
A rather limp response. If you start requiring lockstep adherence to a rather ambiguous ideological yardstick, you will always come up short. What you are talking about is party discipline.
Political dominance is as much a matter of moral authority as it is numerical advantage. Sellout opportunists like Hagel, McCain, et. al. represent no political principle except compromise, which is, by definition, no principle at all.
Hegel and McCain have relatively high ACU ratings. How far do you carry this ideological orthodoxy? Politics is the art of the possible. Although there will be some areas where no compromise is possible or desireable, any politician worth his salt will compromise to get something done. I don't know how you can characterize Hegel and McCain has having no principles.
If the idea of ideological unity is a "limp response," then you go on accreting hordes of tepid Republicans into your numerical majority. However, don't expect much in the way of change, since their ideals aren't radically different than the Democrats'. But then why should they be? After all, politics is "the art of the possible," and compromising with our enemies is a GOOD thing.
MD-Open (D) - Longshot
MI-Debbie Stabenow (D) - Tougher than expected with Mike Rogers and Candice Miller not running. Still possible since Debbie's very incompetent.
MN-Open (D) - Tossup.
MT-Conrad Burns (R) - Tough defense, but Burns won two tough fights already.
ND-Kent Conrad (D)--only if GOP Governor John Hoeven runs - Agreed.
NE-Ben Nelson (D) - Depends on who runs.
NJ-Open (D)--only if Senator Jon Corzine is elected governor in 2005 - Only if the GOP gets its act together.
PA-Rick Santorum (R) - Our toughest defense with the Philly burbs going heavily rat lately.
RI-Lincoln Chafee (R) - Good riddance.
TN-Open (R) - No Sunquist type, please.
TX-Open (R)--only if Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison runs for governor in 2006 - Longshot for dems. Like Jersey.
VA-George Allen (R)--only if Governor Mark Warner (D) decides to run - Agreed, but I think Warner may go for president instead.
WA-Maria Cantwell (D) - 49%'er like Stabenow. We'll see.
And boy, that would really suck, because then we wouldn't be able to confirm strict-constructionist judges or enact Social Security reform.
Oh, wait...
Gospel? Of course not. I used the ACU ratings as a generally accepted measure of conservative voting on key issues. There is no definitive authority as to the acceptable degree of conservatism. You seem to want to fill that role.
If the idea of ideological unity is a "limp response," then you go on accreting hordes of tepid Republicans into your numerical majority.
How do your propose thinning the herd out? Do you want to be in the minority again so you can bask in your smug, confining ideological orthodoxy? We have two major political parties in this country that encompass a broad spectrum of political thought. The more narrow you define your ideology, the less power you will have to influence the polity.
However, don't expect much in the way of change, since their ideals aren't radically different than the Democrats'. But then why should they be? After all, politics is "the art of the possible," and compromising with our enemies is a GOOD thing.
I am not for radical change in America regardless of who is in power. The similarities between the parties reflect a general national consensus on basic principles and objectives. "Enemies" is a strong and loaded term. If you believe that this country, which is fairly evenly split between Dems and Reps, is so divided that those in the other party are the enemy, then we really are in trouble. So how do you propose in a democracy (or more correctly a republic) to deal with an enemy to achieve your desired end?
So you think it preferable to be in the minority so it would be easier to blame the bad ol' Dems? Sarcasm aside, being the majority party in the Senate has many advantages including appointing Committee Chairmen and setting the legistlative agenda.
If we continue to attack one another, we will again be the minority party where we seem to be the most comfortable. The anger and rage of the Dems who have been out of power for just ten years indicate that they understand what control of Congress means. They will do anything to get it back.
By eliminating those in the ranks who have shown a repeated pattern of moral abdication. When conservatives line up and a given congressman is never in that number, how do they claim the title of "Conservative?"
Do you want to be in the minority again so you can bask in your smug, confining ideological orthodoxy?
No, far better to have dozens and dozens of "Republicans" who vote consistently with the Democrats. THAT'S the way to ideological dominance.
I am willing to sacrifice short-term numerical superiority in favor of long-term ideological unity.
We have two major political parties in this country that encompass a broad spectrum of political thought.
And which part of that spectrum do Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Chuck Hagel occupy? Certainly not the doctrinaire conservative end.
The more narrow you define your ideology, the less power you will have to influence the polity.
The more widely you define your ideology, the less it means. You can't BE all things to everyone. And if the only way you can win is to out-Democrat the Democrats, in the end, who won?
I am not for radical change in America regardless of who is in power.
In a nation where women are free to murder their children, where a selfish slob of a husband can murder his wife, where certain preferred classes are given advantages based on their skin color, and where judges are free to ignore our defining documents in their zeal to advance a repugnant lifestyle, radical change is not only likely, it's imperative. These are not times for the fainthearted.
The similarities between the parties reflect a general national consensus on basic principles and objectives.
That's a nice thought, but do they really? Or do they reflect a disintegration of our commonality, a "me first" mentality that ignores the greater good for personal benefit? Or an apathy that just shrugs and goes back to the WWF Summer Slam? There is no "consensus" on abortion, except that it is reprehensible. There is no "consensus" on homosexual marriage except that it is an abomination. There is no "consensus" on "affirmative action" except that it is PC doublespeak. Your consensus is a myth. What there IS is moral cowardice, the accommodation you so politely refer to as "compromise."
"Enemies" is a strong and loaded term.
Precisely why I used it.
If you believe that this country, which is fairly evenly split between Dems and Reps, is so divided that those in the other party are the enemy, then we really are in trouble.
News flash: we really ARE in trouble! And if you believe that people who apologize to terrorists for being American are NOT the enemy, you should start opening the garage door before you let your car run.
So how do you propose in a democracy (or more correctly a republic) to deal with an enemy to achieve your desired end?
I personally would like to line the socialists up against a wall, but why waste a perfectly good wall. Instead, I'd recommend a sound and thorough reading of the framing documents of this nation, and a studied comprehension of their original intent. Then I would recommend committing oneself anew to perpetuating those values, by eliminating from positions of power those people who repeatedly violate those principles. By "eliminate," I mean using every facility available under the law.
Larry Sabato is a metrosexual buffoon.
What you said!
?? The House has an incredibly high re-election percentage (~98%) - higher than the Senate.
Okay, that's just stupid.
yeah but on a strict numbers (not percentage basis) there will be more upsets in the house this time around....
The article said Dork Warner is unlikely to challenge Allen, but never mentioned why. It's because Allen would beat Warner, and likely quite handily. I don't think has the clout or charisma to run for Prez, but I bet he's angling for a VP slot. You know, that southern centrist [wink!] Dem thing.
Or get tax cuts, or support our military, or ban partial-birth abortion, or wage an offensive war on terrorism...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.