And add that to why I applaud her.

The courage would be if she was facing a tough reelection fight and still voted that way.

The courage would be if she was facing a tough reelection fight and still voted that way.

 

Voting against her party may result in a rough primary

The courage would be if she was facing a tough reelection fight and still voted that way.

 

Unlike the Dem party, you are often penalized for crossing the aisle in the GOP on key votes. Snowe may lose her ranking membership position on a key committee or two from this actually.

Unlike the Dem party, you are often penalized for crossing the aisle in the GOP on key votes. Snowe may lose her ranking membership position on a key committee or two from this actually.

 

Except that isn't true. The Democrats are already looking at running people in races that have gotten away from the Obama talking points. And Joe Lieberman is offended you forgot about him.

What has Lieberman lost? He rarely votes with the Dems.

Except that isn't true. The Democrats are already looking at running people in races that have gotten away from the Obama talking points. And Joe Lieberman is offended you forgot about him.

It is true, but not black and white. The Dems are most definitely more inclusive and allow a broader umbrella, I don't see how that's not clear. But even they have a limit. This is one of the defining qualities of the two parties right now - the Dems are more inclusive but als more disorganized, the GOP is much more lock-step.

 

And if you truly believe in your party's ideals and platform, you want that lock step voting. You know there are Dem party officios who dream of having that control over their membership.

It is true, but not black and white. The Dems are most definitely more inclusive and allow a broader umbrella, I don't see how that's not clear. But even they have a limit. This is one of the defining qualities of the two parties right now - the Dems are more inclusive but als more disorganized, the GOP is much more lock-step.

There are actually reasons why this happens in the Senate and Lieberman/Collins is an excellent example in fact. Lieberman went to the RNC last year, campaigned openly for McCain, and against the Dem ticket. When the Dems considered taking away his chairmanship as punishment, the media went up in arms in defense of their 2nd favorite son against the hideous angry left, and Lieberman kept his gavel. Collins on the other hand may well lose her seniority on a committee or two over this vote and the stimulus vote when the next reorganization happens (she's next in line to be the ranking member on at least 1 committee). The Dems aren't even willing to enforce party unity when a guy speaks at the other party's national convention against their Presidential candidate, and the Republicans are willing to enforce it over major votes.

And if you truly believe in your party's ideals and platform, you want that lock step voting. You know there are Dem party officios who dream of having that control over their membership.

If the leadership really wanted it, they could try to enforce it a lot harder (see previous post).

And if you truly believe in your party's ideals and platform, you want that lock step voting. You know there are Dem party officios who dream of having that control over their membership.

Not necessarily. If you try to have everyone lockstep, you end up seeing your power to actually do anything dwindle. There is a balance there. To be effective as a legislator, you have to be able to compromise, and to be effective as a party, you have to be able to work across the aisle occasionally. Unless a party can somehow get lockstep AND have a 60% majoority in a chamber, but honestly, I think that is nearly impossible to do at the national level.

 

Except that isn't true. The Democrats are already looking at running people in races that have gotten away from the Obama talking points. And Joe Lieberman is offended you forgot about him.

That's like the 20th time you brought up Lieberman, but nothing ever happened to him.

Unless a party can somehow get lockstep AND have a 60% majoority in a chamber, but honestly, I think that is nearly impossible to do at the national level.

Just a note again...the 60% majority for every vote continues to be a very young, newly imposed standard.

Not necessarily. If you try to have everyone lockstep, you end up seeing your power to actually do anything dwindle. There is a balance there. To be effective as a legislator, you have to be able to compromise, and to be effective as a party, you have to be able to work across the aisle occasionally. Unless a party can somehow get lockstep AND have a 60% majoority in a chamber, but honestly, I think that is nearly impossible to do at the national level.

To point this out and turn the table a bit, look at the bush administration. Some had no problem with him running up debt but others who are the far right fiscal conservatives had issues with that.

 

It's just ironic now that those same people who supported bush's spending now oppose Obama's.

What has Lieberman lost? He rarely votes with the Dems.

This is a myth that people get carried away with. He's a reliable liberal vote on everything except when it comes to wars/Israel.

So, is there free health care yet? I haven't been paying attention. If there is, what does it cover. Everything? I want some free stuff.

This is a myth that people get carried away with. He's a reliable liberal vote on everything except when it comes to wars/Israel.

Which is why he's opposing the public option.

Which is why he's opposing the public option.

Meh I should've said "almost." People are like, he's basically a Republican. The dude is no more a Republican than I am. That's just a lazy ass statement.

Edited October 14, 200916 yr by lostfan

This is a myth that people get carried away with. He's a reliable liberal vote on everything except when it comes to wars/Israel.

And health care.

This is a myth that people get carried away with. He's a reliable liberal vote on everything except when it comes to wars/Israel.

 

What about health care? Thought so.

Hey lostfan, I don't think Lieberman supported health care.

I believe if left to their natural choices, we'd see far more Lieberman-eque leaders. Lose coolitions based on around certain issues that ebb and flow, no one can be that lock step with a party.

Which is why he's opposing the public option.

 

 

And health care.

 

 

What about health care? Thought so.

 

 

Hey lostfan, I don't think Lieberman supported health care.

lol hi

I just wanted to make sure you knew

Seriously though I know everyone who read that knows full well what I was saying with or without the minor oversight where I decided to stop typing. Lieberman is obnoxious as s*** but this doesn't mean he's a conservative.

Edited October 14, 200916 yr by lostfan

Well, I hate how being a war hawk dem makes you "moderate". War is mainstream.