Skip to main content

View Diary: Another GOP Senate Rule Change: This one to suppress moderates (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree (3.00)
    The problem is that "dissenting voices" are often as unwelcome in Democratic party as in Republican. Both parties are moving in "extremist" direction - far left and far right correspondingly. Remember an attempt to give
    former PA Governor Casey right to address one of recent Democratic Presidential conventions? He was somply denied a chance to speak for being pro-life.

    BTW - Republicans usually work smarter. They ran Arnie and Rudy as very prominent speakers during last Conventions, they advertised as loudly as they could Lincoln Chafee independence and his opposition to a lot of party positions during his Senate campaign of 2000. Sometimes it seems to me, that Republicans want to win (anyway, they understood that Specter was more electable, then Toomey, and almost all leadership supported him, and so on), while Democrats want to be "ideologically pure". As a result - they win, and we can only boast about our "progressism" and some local successes. Republicans ran obvious RINO Bloomberg when they understood that it's the only way for them to win NYC mayorality, why can't we do the same where it's feasible, and progressive simply can't win????

    •  Demcrats are... (none)
      moving to the "extremist" far left?

      "Democrats want to be "ideologically pure"?

      You and I have two very different views of the democratic party.

      "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 08:14:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely different. So what??? (none)
        You proclaim "big tent" theory, don't you? I stressed in my posts, that i am generally moderate-to-liberal type. Just as all really successful recent Democratic presidential candidates are: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.. On the contrary - all candidates, which were (or at least were perceived) a liberals - G. McGovern, W. Mondale, M. Dukakis, J. Kerry, even A. Gore - invariably lost. I am absolutely no fan of Nancy Pelosy and consider her "a Democratic Newt" and so on, but i am absolutely comfortable with (for example) Dianne Feinstein... I support abortion righs and gay rights (though i oppose gay marriage), but i am irritated when party gets fixated on these problems only. Now you probably understand..
        •  I would suggest (none)
          you spend some time with our friends in the green party and, even more so, the unconverted nader voters, if you want to see the "extreme left" and the "ideologically pure." The Democratic Party hasn't been either of those in a long, long time. What passes for "lefty" these days (Howard Dean for instance) is in reality "moderate" or, dare I say, "centrist."

          And I have, and will continue to, argue that the problem with the Democratic Party is not direction, right, left, or center... but rather definition. Who are we and what do we stand for? And why do we run away from that which we stand for? In my view the only reason, and the rest of the nation, perceive the Democratic party as fixated only on abortion and gay rights is that we have allowed the Republican propoganda machine to define us into that corner. We allow them to define us instead of defining ourselves.

          This is where we fail.

          "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 12:50:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here i agree (none)
            Yeah, it's possible to find people to the left of Democratic Party "activists", as well as - to the right of republican party "wingnuts". There are, for example - communists on the left and KKK-people and fascists on the right. But we speak here about "mainstream", don't we? We don't want to be neither communists, nor fascists, don't we? Despite some Green's success on local level - it's still not on equal footing with 2 main parties as far as it's electoral influence is concerned. So i speak strictly of "mainstream" here. And THEN my reasoning will be correct: most of the Republicans leaders come from the very right end of this "mainstream" (and party as a whole moves in that direction), while most of Democratic - from the very left, and it's the direction of party development. The moderates in BOTH parties feel discomfort and react (well - they react differently, but it's a sign of lack of "normalcy")....
    •  Incorrect Assumptions (none)
      Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, supports abortion.

      We all gave great hope and support for Brad Carson, who would be on the right half of the Republicans.

      Casey was not denied a chance to speak because of abortion - he refused to endorse Cliton-Gore.  It is not moving left or right to restrict speakers at the convention to those who have endorsed the parties nominee.

      And how, exactly, are the Democrats moving to the left?  Some are, its true, but some are moving right.  Howard Dean is presented as a liberal for opposing the war, but if you look at his record he is quite a centrist, a deficit hawk as opposed to a big spender, and he wasn't the one pushing civil unions in Vermont.

      Stop drinking the Faux News Kool-Aid.

      •  Oops (none)
        I mean to say "Harry Reid does not support abortion"
        •  Correction (none)
          I gemerally meant those who speak here at forum, as well as such leaders as Nancy Pelosy. With leaders like that - do we need an enemies?
        •  And some more details (none)
          I looked at Planned Parenthood ratings - they usually consider Reid a sort of "moderate" on abortion - neither supports, nor viciously opposes. Just like Arlen Specter or even Ted Stevens in Republican party. The only one solid anti-abortion Senator now (after John Breaux retirement) is, probably, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The only solidly anti-abortion Democratic Governor - Kathleen Blanco in Louisiana. The anti-abortion Democratic faction in House - about 20-30 members. All numbers are approximately the same as for pro-choice Republicans in corresponding bodies (except Governors - there are considerably more pro-choice Republican Governors then pro-life Democratic). So the "mirror similarity" of 2 parties, which i mentioned before, continues. The "mirror reflection" of Newt will be Nancy, and so on...

          It's the first time i hear, that Casey refused to support Clinton-Gore. All previous papers on that matter quoted as a reason his strongly antiabortion views... I will check the details..

          •  Indirectly (none)
            Indirectly, it was Casey's pro-life views that got him booted, because those views led him to not endorse Clinton.  But if he had endorsed Clinton, I think its quite likely he would have been given a chance to speak.

            Kerry would not have asked Zell Miller to speak at this years DNC, nor should we have expected him too.

            Most of the places you read about Casey are right wing sites looking to pick a fight, and sadly they seem to lack the intellectual honesty to even mention the endorsement issue.  I've seen quite a few sarcastic references to disallowing Casey to speak at a 'unified' convention, those articles universally fail to mention that Casey himself refused to be unify with his party behind his parties candidate, despite agreeing on many other issues.  They also mention that he tried to give an anti-abortion speech at the time of the 1992 convention, sponsored by the Village Voice, but was drowned out by a minority of the audience; what they fail to point out what that his speech was sponsored by one of the most liberal papers in the country, and the audience was mostly respectful - and their are certainly disrespectful extremists on both sides, especially when someone is slamming the standard-bearer of his own party.

            Popular GOP moderates were allowed to speak at the RNC this year, but only ones that backed the candidate; Lincoln Chafee was not on the podium, and neither Schwarzenegger nor Guiliani were allowed to discuss their views on abortion, nor gay rights and the environment.

            Beofre you spread right-wing talking points, you should make sure they are accurate and in context.

            •  Disagree (none)
              First - i DO have a right on any views, leftwing, moderate or rightwing: it's a democracy - don't it? You may disagree with me, but you must at least tolerate my views, don't you? Otherwise you are not too different from republican wingnuts, isn't it? I repeat - i read many times about Casey affair in respectable press, so i will check out one more time and come to my own conclusion i will trust. I didn't asked for Zell Miller to be allowed to speak this year, but i will continue to state that most democratic "activists" are no more tolerable of opposite views, then their republican "wingnut" colleagues (BTW - during Republican convention everyone knew Arnie's and Rudy's views on abortion and gay rights - and they were very warmly received nevertheless). Try to say in Bay Area that you are a pro-life and pro-gun Democrat - and you immediately become pariah. Just as it would be in Georgia suburbs if you would introduce himself before local audience as pro-choice and pro-gay righs Republican. Reaction is basically the same: "get out of our party!". Both parties still have sizable moderate factions, but both are led (mainly) by the people on the extreme of political spectrum. For me (moderate) many are simple "mirror images" of their opposites... So i don't admire neither right-wing "nuts" nor left-wing "activists". Both are too singleminded (and "simpleminded") for my tastes...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site