By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
badgenome on 29 October 2010
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

It's not, nobody in the democratic party considers blue dogs as healthy activity. You're trying to point out hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

The only overlap in those groups is a shared end. They all want liberals out of power. How can you even begin to compare blue dogs with the division in the right between GOP and Tea Party? I'm surprised, to be honest. You act like it's such a small division can easily be fixed by a nomination! Let's wait til that happens and see what you say then. Just so I can be sure, what kind of candidate would be ideal?  

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

Says the side who complains that liberals vote along party lines 95% of the time. The right is always right, right?



So the only division in the Democratic party is the Blue Dogs, and it's generally agreed among Dems that if they'd just purge them, they'll be one happy, unified bloc? That's pretty funny considering the Dems pride themselves on having "the big tent". It's also pretty funny because after NY-23, Frank Rich and his revoltingly stupid ilk were screaming their heads off about a Stalinist purge in the Republican party. Which was pretty curious because, if it's such a bad thing for Republicans, why would Frank Rich of all people have such angst over it?

I think an ideal candidate would be someone like Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. They're able and willing to be specific when almost nobody else is. They have a lot of the same qualities that helped Obama to get elected in terms of their charisma and stage presence - something no Republican nominee since Reagan has had - but without the arrogance and unbecoming thin-skinnedness he tends to display. And both are conservative in the ways that I care about without having all the baggage and weird hang-ups the preponderance of social conservatives have.

Finally, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with this "says the side" business. For one thing, I'm not a "side". For another, I don't think I've ever complained that liberals vote along party lines. I do complain that their ideas are stupid and destructive. But everyone knows (or should know) that people tend to vote with their party 90% of the time, which is why all this business about HURRRRRR CHRISTINE ODONALD IS A FUCKIN RETARD WHORE is beyond me. The average Congressperson or Senator doesn't set out to write the most poignant, transformative piece of legislation in a generation; they're little more than a rubber stamp for their party.