August 01, 2006

Why Is It...

...that when Republicans act to make Republicans act like...Republicans, by shunning candidates that favor higher taxes, bigger government, porous borders, speech rationing and victim disarmament, we're "imposing purity tests", which is a "bad thing" that "chills dissent from the neocon/fundie/Rovian agenda"...

...but when the Kossacks launch a bit to politically lynch Joe Lieberman for being a relative moderate, it's a good thing?

Posted by Mitch at August 1, 2006 06:53 AM | TrackBack

I think the simplest way to describe it is "the complete, utter and oh-so-typical hypocrisy of leftists".

Posted by: Bill C at August 1, 2006 09:11 AM

It's not. Polarization is bad for the country. Hope that helps.

Posted by: angryclown at August 1, 2006 09:13 AM

So the Ned Lamont crowd is bad for the country?

Posted by: mitch at August 1, 2006 09:23 AM

Mitch, do you have any particular race in mind? Other than a primary challenge being made up in the Michigan 7CD and Laffey challenging Chaffee in the Rhode Island Senate contest, I’m not really aware of too many GOP incumbents facing primary challenges for not being conservative enough.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 1, 2006 09:28 AM

By the way, don't forget to put the Lieberman primary in your file of isolated examples of bad behavior (along with William Jefferson and the 2004 Milwaukee vote fraud case), that you can use to call your opponents hypocrites and justify wholesale bad behavior by your side.

Posted by: angryclown at August 1, 2006 09:29 AM

Because the republican party leadership threatens anyone who challenges their candidates regardless of how far they have strayed - you get relatively few challengers who make it to the primary.

Tim "Let Tax/Fee and Spend" Pawlenty comes to mind.

Posted by: Sam at August 1, 2006 10:45 AM

One is imposed by party leadership, while the other is a grass roots effort. Apples and oranges, Mitch.

Now you could turn around and say that the democractic leadership also impose litmus tests. But ... considering the democratic party is a collection of warring tribes, that does not speak to their efficacy in imposing these tests. Nevertheless, this is still bad: it drives partisanship and eliminates compromise, which is vital for a functioning democracy.

Speaking of polarization, the authors of "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Walras-Pareto Lectures)" create several measurements of polarization and graph them to income distribution. They demonstrate that over time, starting early in the 20th century, that high polarization correlates with unequal income distribution, while low polarization correlates with a more equalized income distribution.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at August 1, 2006 11:19 AM

The answer to Mitch's question is that there is no difference. Republicans are trying to hold their candidates to the Republican Party platform and Democrats are trying to hold their candidates to THEIR platform. That is what they are supposed to do.

Sam - cute attempt to slime the Governor. The only problem is that your candidate went to ANOTHER PARTY FIRST! As a netroots activist and convention delegate I can tell you that your candidates biggest mistake was going to the Libertarian Party first. If she had not done that, she would have been presented to the floor of the convention. It's that simple!

I mean for cryin' out loud - Harold Shudlick came out of the candidate search committee and he is further to the left on some issues than the Senator Dayton! If Harold Shudlick made it out of committee Sue certainly would have HAD SHE NOT GONE TO ANOTHER PARTY FOR ENDORSEMENT FIRST!

Posted by: The Lady Logician at August 1, 2006 11:19 AM

The Lady Logician is quite correct in her recollection of events. Pawlenty’s “challenger” first went to the Libertarian Party where she was ENDORSED by their party before she decided that she was going to run against Pawlenty for the GOP endorsement. She also tried to pull the “I didn’t really accept their endorsement” line of BS (even though on her campaign blog she referred to herself as the Libertarian candidate for governor) and the LP got so ticked off by her two-facedness that they withdrew their endorsement and now she has nothing.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 1, 2006 11:27 AM

This is really nothing new. Former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the '92 Democratic convention due to his (gasp!) pro-life stance.

Posted by: Brad at August 1, 2006 12:13 PM

“This is really nothing new. Former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the '92 Democratic convention due to his (gasp!) pro-life stance.”

To be fair to the Democrats, it’s actually a bit more nuanced then that. Other pro-life speakers spoke at the convention (Mayor Daley, Senator John Breaux) but not on abortion. Governor Casey apparently made a point of NOT endorsing then Governor Bill Clinton for president because of the abortion issue and had requested to deliver a pro-life speech. There’s a difference IMO between shutting out a speaker because s/he differs with the majority of delegates on an issue versus shutting out a speaker because they (a) refuse to support your party’s presidential nominee because of that issue and (b) wish to use the convention as a forum for publicly challenging them on that issue.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 1, 2006 12:26 PM

Mitch, when the kossacks attack Lieberman, it IS a good thing.

For us, of course.

Cull out all of the moderate Democrats, and the choice for the wavering gets easier.

Posted by: bobby_b at August 1, 2006 12:32 PM

One more point, regarding the "lifelong Republican" Sue Jeffers: Her campaign was REGISTERED as a LIBERTARIAN with Campaign Finance until 48 hours before the State Convention. That means, for those uneducated clods (see: bitterclown, Dougie-boy) she signed papers that said she was RUNNING as a Libertarian candidate. Its not like the people at Campaign Finance filled in the blank for her. SHE signed the form.

Then...mysteriously...48 hours before the REPUBLICAN convention...she conveniently runs into Campaign Finance and changes the registration. I have one word to describe her:


Here's another one: FRAUD!

Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2006 12:41 PM

Doesn't fraud actually mean something else, Dave?

I'm sure a lot of Jeffers supporters would consider her move opportunistic. This is politics after all.

Posted by: Badda-Blogger at August 1, 2006 12:49 PM

I think the difference between Lieberman and Chaffee et al for the most part is that Lieberman was in no way considered outside the mainstream of the Dems 10-20 years ago. He hasn't gotten any more conservative as far as I can tell. The Party has moved farther left and he refused to be dragged along.

Posted by: JonM in MN at August 1, 2006 01:13 PM

“I think the difference between Lieberman and Chaffee et al for the most part is that Lieberman was in no way considered outside the mainstream of the Dems 10-20 years ago.”

The other being that Lieberman never publicly refused to support the endorsed presidential nominee.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 1, 2006 01:20 PM

According to the dictionary definition of the word "fraud":

1. intentional deception resulting in injury to another person (Ok, Jeffers might not fit this one)

2. imposter: a person who make deceitful pretenses (Fits Jeffers PERFECTLY)

3. something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage (Again, fits Jeffers to a tee)

Jeffers sought the Libertarian endorsement, got it, then played parlor games with the endorsement...such as saying she GOT the endorsement but never ACCEPTED it. Sorta takes me back to the "...but I didn't inhale" good old days of Hillbilly Bill.

Sue Jeffers DID deceive SOMEBODY. Either she deceived the Libertarians....or she deceived the Republicans. She either tricked the Libertarians into the endorsement or tried to trick the Republicans. Except...the Republicans had a search committee that wasn't gonna play her game.

If the term fits: Use it. Sue Jeffers is the textbook definition of the word "Fraud".

Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2006 01:31 PM

I'm going to be a little more generous than Dave or Badda-blogger and say that I think Ms. Jeffers was very ill-advised.

I've talked to Ms. Jeffers a few times and she strikes me as being very earnest but not too politically savvy. I don't think she intended to be decietfull - I think she was talked out of running as a Republican initially and then had second thoughts about the whole Libertarian experiment.

Posted by: The Lady Logician at August 1, 2006 02:37 PM

Bill - you are assuming apples and oranges, but I don't see anything in Mitch's post that says party leadership is pushing Republicans to act like Republicans. The movement is coming from the grass roots, just as the Kos movement is "representative" of the Democratic grass roots.

The Republicans push is coming from the grass roots. Don't believe me? Come down to my CD with any of the Republican candidates and listen to the grief they get from the average Joe and Jane Citizen!

Posted by: The Lady Logician at August 1, 2006 02:40 PM


You are far more forgiving than I. I believe that Sue was infected with "Listen to me! Pay attention to me! I have something to say!" disease back during the Smoking Ban debate and she developed a taste for the limelight.

I don't believe for one second she was mislead or coersed. She went into this with her mission to be fawned over by the Press.

Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2006 04:02 PM

I have to side a bit with Dave on this one. IMO it is also notable that her former campaign manager, Dan Coleman, was a registered Democrat from Tennessee who ran for Congress as a Democrat in Florida and who quit almost immediately after Jeffers was barred from disrupting the GOP State Convention in May.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 1, 2006 04:33 PM

I'm still laughing about "Polarization is bad for the country".
Try that line on black folk during the Buchanan administration.

Posted by: Kermit at August 1, 2006 04:37 PM

I think they did pretty well under Lincoln, who ran as a centrist and governed by building a national consensus around the war and, eventually, emancipation.

Posted by: angryclown at August 1, 2006 04:58 PM

Yeah, that Lincoln was such a consensus-builder that his election resulted in votes in favor of secession in various Southern legislatures. Note to the furious Bozo; the fact that there are still people to your left and to your right does not necessarily mean your are in the center, or if you still can't grasp the concept, ask yourself this: is Utah in the center of the country, by virtue of the fact that there are states, respectively, to the east, west, north, and south?

Posted by: Will Allen at August 1, 2006 07:52 PM

"Lincoln, who ran as a centrist..."

...who, like any Republican, was STILL regarded as an extremist by his opponents.

New York City voted for Jefferson Davis by around a 20 point margin. Some things never change.

Posted by: mitch at August 2, 2006 05:59 AM

I think you mean Stephen Douglas, big fella.

Posted by: angryclown at August 2, 2006 08:33 AM

Just testing.

Lincoln lost big.

Posted by: mitch at August 2, 2006 10:01 AM

Will Allen, you make no sense at all. Are you a native English speaker?

Posted by: angyclown at August 2, 2006 11:34 AM

What Will was trying to say was South Carolia "President Lincoln? Adios, USA."
How Moderate is someone who pursues a devastating war? Gosh, GW must be a moderate!

Posted by: Kermit at August 2, 2006 11:59 AM

I am, clown, but I rather suspect you are not, or just extraordinarily ignorant of American history, geography, or, most likely, both.

Posted by: Will Allen at August 2, 2006 02:08 PM

Angryclown isn't against war, Kerm. Angryclown just prefers to win 'em. Your guy doesn't exactly inspire a lot of comparisons to Lincoln.

Posted by: angryclown at August 2, 2006 04:41 PM

Furious bozo, having his ignorance exposed, a common occurence for the sort of half-wit who believes inane sarcasm to be the highest form of rhetoric, changes the subject from the insipid assertion that he made. Clown, if the vacuum that exists within your cranium can only produce pointless yammerings of this sort, would you consider sparing everyone the spectacle of the cyber-equivalent of the common loon shouting on a street corner, and just go away? I'd say you do people of your political beliefs no favors in the way you put them forth, but this would assume you actually have a coherent way of looking at the political world which rises above that of the average twelve year old who seeks attention in class via pre-adolescent wisecracks.

Posted by: Will Allen at August 2, 2006 07:01 PM

You're right Will Allen. I should have addressed that really good point you made about Utah being, you know, in the west and not in the middle of the country. Kansas is more in the middle of the country. Killer argument there.

Oh, and get a last name, 'kay?

Posted by: angryclown at August 3, 2006 08:26 AM

77dc692dec218597a57bac8501e0a299 elogiodellafollia reason pronto ippodromocapannelle bmw316 consumermailinglist import orologiomuller pasticciopiccione transincontri lavorosanvendemiano curriculumvitaemodelli videobrigittabulgari disegnofestamamma padronaschiavo smsgratiswind 75a742eec33669b1edde3eaa6b5f0c97

Posted by: Guy at August 4, 2006 04:28 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?