Republicans lost a good one today.!

[Bonestorm]

Crist may be new to the Senate, but he is not new to politics. I doubt he burns his bridges. Lieberman, if anything, was in better position to do that due to his veteran status. The only way Crist does it is if he is sure he's coming out ahead with some new found allies. My guess is, if he gets in this way then he will cozy back up to the GOP.

It's not entirely up to Crist, though. He can cozy up to the GOP all he wants, if the caucus doesn't want him, they don't have to have him.

The idea that Crist was kicked out is what he wants you to think. He lost and now is looking to make it look like it was really his choice and commitment to some higher goal that has inspired this action. He does not have any goals higher than attaining office.

Members of the GOP elite may actually be a participating in his gambit.

I'm not at all suggesting that Crist was "kicked out." He was losing a primary. That's all. Like Lieberman and Specter and others, he saw that the only way for him to maintain any shot at keeping office was for him to go independent. Crist is hardly alone in this regard.

 

[Timshel]

I'm not at all suggesting that Crist was "kicked out." He was losing a primary. That's all. Like Lieberman and Specter and others, he saw that the only way for him to maintain any shot at keeping office was for him to go independent. Crist is hardly alone in this regard.

I agree.

 

[Damocles]

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5367

Kucinich struck another blow for democracy by challenging the restrictive loyalty oath required by the Texas Democratic Party to get on the primary ballot. He actually reads the contracts he signs. When presented with the loyalty oath required to run as a Democrat in the Texas primary, Kucinich prudently edited the document to reflect the requirements of free citizens living in a democracy:

"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

LOL... Texas Democrats did the same thing the Florida Republicans did and Nigel freaks only about republicans...

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL... Texas Democrats did the same thing the Florida Republicans did and Nigel freaks only about republicans...

The Texas Democratic Party loyalty pledge is a bit much as well. I only commented on the Florida thing because it was relevant to the thread and I didn't comment on the Texas Democratic Party loyalty oath because I didn't know it existed.

Now that we have the "they do it, too" issue out of the way, what's your take on it? Yurt, what about you?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I misread PMP's comment. I thought he was suggesting that there was no room in the Democratic Party for those that don't do the Obama dance when what he was really saying was that there is no room in Republican Party for those that do the Obama dance. My mistake. In any event, below is my response to you:


Not at all. But "the party" didn't kick him out. He caucuses with the Democrats and maintained his committee chairmanship. The rank and file may not have liked it, but the party made room for Joe Lieberman notwithstanding that he actively campaigned against the Party's nominee for president, actively campaigned for the Republican candidate and was even a key speaker at the RNC convention.

Is that because he gave them (at the time) the 60th vote?... and to kick him out of his roles now would simply hammer home that point?

 

[Bonestorm]

Is that because he gave them (at the time) the 60th vote?... and to kick him out of his roles now would simply hammer home that point?

At the time, I think he was the 58th vote with Alaska and Minnesota still up in the air (Georgia too but Saxby wasn't going to lose the run off).

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The Texas Democratic Party loyalty pledge is a bit much as well. I only commented on the Florida thing because it was relevant to the thread and I didn't comment on the Texas Democratic Party loyalty oath because I didn't know it existed.

Now that we have the "they do it, too" issue out of the way, what's your take on it? Yurt, what about you?

a pledge to the toe the party line vis a vis your vote...pretty silly

and so is your revisionist history in this thread

 

[Jarod]

did you have a problem with lieberman going independent? it doesn't bother you at all when someone leaves the dem party?

I felt the same way about Lieberman the day after he left the Democratic party as the day prior.

 

[Bonestorm]

a pledge to the toe the party line vis a vis your vote...pretty silly

and so is your revisionist history in this thread

What revisionist history? After the 2006 elections when Lieberman ran against the Democratic nominee, the Democrats didn't need him for anything yet they still welcomed him to the caucus.

 

[Jarod]

Crist will likely win, and caucus with the R's....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Crist will likely win, and caucus with the R's....

if he couldn't generate enough votes to win the primary, what makes you think he could generate enough votes to win an election?......

 

[Damocles]

The Texas Democratic Party loyalty pledge is a bit much as well. I only commented on the Florida thing because it was relevant to the thread and I didn't comment on the Texas Democratic Party loyalty oath because I didn't know it existed.

Now that we have the "they do it, too" issue out of the way, what's your take on it? Yurt, what about you?

I think oaths like this are stupid as even among the most supportable there are issues that I don't agree with, I mean who agrees with every portion of the platform of ANY party? And, IMO, you just assumed that the Rs were the only ones that did it and though, "This would be a great time to talk about how they are 'lock step' and 'we aren't'!" Later posts give more evidence of that as you try to explain away the "He's a traitor!" rubbish that we all heard about Lieberman with the sad excuse of 'he caucuses with the Democrats though!'...

But instead, it just became another example of the political Hydra. I like pointing out how alike the two major parties are, it underlines the reason for my political malaise and exactly why the TEA Party people actually meet and protest.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What revisionist history? After the 2006 elections when Lieberman ran against the Democratic nominee, the Democrats didn't need him for anything yet they still welcomed him to the caucus.

yes they did...they were afraid of losing his vote...numerous dems wanted him out, were vitriol, but they knew at the time they needed his vote

don't be delusional nigel and he in fact lost a chairmanship

 

[Bonestorm]

I think oaths like this are stupid as even among the most supportable there are issues that I don't agree with, I mean who agrees with every portion of the platform of ANY party? And, IMO, you just assumed that the Rs were the only ones that did it and though, "This would be a great time to talk about how they are 'lock step' and 'we aren't'!" Later posts give more evidence of that as you try to explain away the "He's a traitor!" rubbish that we all heard about Lieberman with the sad excuse of 'he caucuses with the Democrats though!'...

But instead, it just became another example of the political Hydra. I like pointing out how alike the two major parties are, it underlines the reason for my political malaise and exactly why the TEA Party people actually meet and protest.

Your post was better without the edit. This mind-reading horseshit is pretty silly.

I only brought up the fact that Lieberman was not kicked out of anything in response to a comment that I admittedly misconstrued. See post #32.

And the TEA Party people are just Republicans or Republican-leaners, nothing more.

 

[Bonestorm]

yes they did...they were afraid of losing his vote...numerous dems wanted him out, were vitriol, but they knew at the time they needed his vote

don't be delusional nigel and he in fact lost a chairmanship

You know what, Yurt? You're right for once. I was misremembering the size of the Senate Democratic caucus after the 2006 elections. Lieberman was needed.

As for the chairmanship, my statement was correct. Lieberman maintained his committee chairmanship.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You know what, Yurt? You're right for once. I was misremembering the size of the Senate Democratic caucus after the 2006 elections. Lieberman was needed.

As for the chairmanship, my statement was correct. Lieberman maintained his committee chairmanship.

for once i almost want to be proud of you for admitting you were wrong

i didn't say you were wrong about him keepign the specific chairmanship you mentioned, i said he lost "a" chairmanship....i can't remember what though....

ah...google...environment chair