Political Crossfire Forums

[Eduffy80911]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: U seless N ations wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

:lol: good question I would like to see what a moderate says to this :lol:

I would say that's a baseless and false charge.

Moderates are people that do not want to please everyone. They are however, people that can see issues from all sides, weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision from the information available.

Moderates also don't believe in swallowing everything they are spoon fed. Too bad people think we are appeasers. We just happen to not take one side over another just to "fit in" to a party platform and we tend to think for ourselves, instead of being TOLD what to think.

I believe it's called being informed.

Sign me -

Moderate Republican with libertarian leanings.

you keep making the absolutely bogus assumption that to have strong convictions means to subscribe to a party platform.

party's follow strong individuals when they show up. Reagan changed a party, the party didn't change Reagan.

If a party or individual happens to put forward a position that is in agreement with mine, I'll amplify it, but only that position. I don't have to become a fundamentalist Christian because I agree with you on taxes, and I don't have to accept the welfare state because I agree with lefties on gay rights, and I don't have to call for a pull out of Iraq because I think dope should be legal.

No, I'm not moderate on any of the above and I would never invoke the name of a party to describe my core beliefs.

[tneedles]

jamesp wrote: It wasn't Murtha's bid, it was Pelosi's desire and nomination.


Lott stepped down due to immense pressure from the DEMS calling him a racist for a comment he made at a birthday party for SC SEN Thurman. ( kinda like Webb/Allen)..McKaka ? whatever that means...everyone thought it was from th Lion King...

Murtha being nominated and supported by Pelosi shows just how far removed the DEMS really are, here is a guy on an FBI tape, and she still supports him.

Lott, although I am not fan of his, has immense knowledge of how the Senate and the internal rules work. He is in a position that the R's need right now.

He was a lousy MAJ Leader, he caved on everything..hopefully he will be a better whip now that he learned HIS lesson.

in case you don't really know waht a whip does,. here is the detail..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whips - Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lesson learned should have been from Speaker Pelosi...don't stand behind a looser on your first order of business...

Considering that Dodd and Rangle have both come out with foolish legislation plans, it is apparant that the DEMS have NOT learned any lesson. Terrorists rights and the Draft..

Huge mistake out of the gate...

Is that what all the DEMS support, legislation to assist Terrorists in Court and to bring back the draft ?

Is that what you all voted for ? Is that what you wanted done first ?

Because that is probably what you are gonna get first...

Trent Lott has respect on both sides of the aisle. The comments he made were not directly racist. We are talking about a generic statement made about the State Right's Party. Alot of the ideas in that party platform (less taxes, more states rights, smaller government) are overshadowed by the party position on race.

Trent Lott knows what to do to get the important parts of legislation passed. Sometimes, he had to compromise to get it through. As a whip, he will be great. He has experience as whip and getting GOP-friendly things added to bills through a much more Democratic-dominated Congress.

[Vakten]

ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

How do I put this...

America doesn't want a Murtha. They don't want a Pelosi who is showing her true colors. They don't want a Hillary showing 'her' true colors. They don't want a Reed. They don't want a Kennedy.

What they want, and what they "clearly" voted for, was Conservative Democrats.

Thus, this isn't an issue of both sides having to put up a moderate to placate the American people.

What this is, is the Democrats having to put up a Conservative Democrat to keep from being stoned by an angry mob.

[ubikk]

jamesp wrote: It wasn't Murtha's bid, it was Pelosi's desire and nomination.

Murtha being nominated and supported by Pelosi shows just how far removed the DEMS really are,

But the party did not support him.

Quote: here is a guy on an FBI tape, and she still supports him..

She owe's him some favor probably

Quote: Lott, although I am not fan of his, has immense knowledge of how the Senate and the internal rules work. He is in a position that the R's need right now...

Nominating Lott shows me that the republicans are out of touch with reality. They need to go with someone more moderate and traditionally republican, someone who's views and temperment are closer to Chuck Hagel's.

[jamesp]

nominating LOTT shows the R's are out of touch ? HUH ???

Out of touch with who ?

His job is to muster up the troops..he is more of a Senate Group Leader in a roll that is vital for republicans and votes. Out of touch ?

You mean if he doesn't cave with a DEM BILL he is out of touch ?

Obviously some here have no clue what a WHIP actually does.

There are still 49 R Senators in the Senate. Those 49 Senators still need to vote on issues and undestand what the vote means. They need to understand the importance of being present for a vote.

49 very important votes, especially if 1 or 2 DEM Senators decide to not be present one day for a vote.

Being in charge of the Senate by 1 vote is a real dengerous position to be in. If I was H Reid, I would be more concerned with the DEM Whip than the R whip...this is not a time for complacency.

A tie Senate vote goes to the VP..he's not a DEM right now as you know.

The R's knew exactly what they were doing, they are FINALLY IN TOUCH..thats what this means.

I suspect Lott will be spending a great deal of time with Conservative Democrat Senators as well. He only needs 1 or 2 to go with him.

This was a great CHESS move...

[Canada_Rocks]

JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

[cool_chick]

Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

So true.

[cool_chick]

Vakten wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

How do I put this...

America doesn't want a Murtha. They don't want a Pelosi who is showing her true colors. They don't want a Hillary showing 'her' true colors. They don't want a Reed. They don't want a Kennedy.

What they want, and what they "clearly" voted for, was Conservative Democrats.

Thus, this isn't an issue of both sides having to put up a moderate to placate the American people.

What this is, is the Democrats having to put up a Conservative Democrat to keep from being stoned by an angry mob.

How do I put this...

YOU don't want a.....YOU don't want a...YOU don't want a....

Don't act like you can read the minds of America, because you can't, no one can. So be accurate and state YOU don't....since that's all you can attest to....and maybe your wife, mother, and a few friends....

[jamesp]

time will tell what America wants..

I doubt the DEMS on this board know either...

A Senate Majority of 1 vote is not the time to bring very Liberal BILLS to the floor...especially with Conservative Democrats in the Senate.

We'll keep a copy/paste of the sinking ship on file for future use...

Listening to Rangle talk about a mandatory draft for 18 to 26 years old's probably scares the bejeezus out of a great deal of them..

I'll go out on a limb..

Young folks who voted Dem,would NOT have voted DEM if Rangle showed his hand BEFORE the election...

" I'm in power now, I'm in charge"

Isn't that the lesson the R's just got handed to them on a platter ?

[ubikk]

Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?


A 'hardliner is someone who is not a moderate and who is inflexible. The republicans need flexibility if they're going to bring swing voters back. Trent Lott isn't exactly screaming "swing vote" to anyone.

Quote: What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

The Dems learned that Congressional ethics was a factor in their winning the election and they better not be careless with who they put in leadership positions.

[ubikk]

jamesp wrote:
I'll go out on a limb...
Young folks who voted Dem,would NOT have voted DEM if Rangle showed his hand BEFORE the election...


LOL! You mean like this? :lol:


Rangel Introduces Draft Bill Jan 7, 2003

[jamesp]

everyone knows Rangle talked about the Draft 3 years ago..welll not everyone, but those that follow politics, which is at best a minimal amount of voters.

HE ( Rangle) , and the DEMS, did NOT mention it , or they forgot to mention it, prior to the NOV 7 elections.

Rangle when asked on the talking head shows before rthe elections wouldn't actually respond...

IF anyone is thinking for a single moment that folks voted and were well aquainted with Rangles DRAFT position...or DODDS assist the TERRORISTS in Court positions..

you guys are only fooling yourselves..

ands that is where the joke is played..

In and ON your own Party...

08 is now only 23 months away...

The DEMS will impode the whole leadership thing themselves, they won't need any assistance. or outside interference.

[perdidochas]

ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

Hmm, when most of your moderates lose the election, that shows me that it's time to go for hardliners. Most Republican losses were moderate Republicans losing to moderate Democrats. Most hardline Republicans kept their seats (Santorum being the only exception, IMHO).

[milton friedman]

Alizard wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: [What did the Dem's learn?

How easy it is to vaporize the ground out from under republicans. All you have to do is give them what they want (a moderate in a leadership position) which completely takes away the repubs ability to call the democrats arrogant and disageeable, abusing their position of leadership (in other words, what the GOP did for the last decade).

The democrats use of simple logic and common sense to destroy all the GOP whining points makes me think they may participate in these forums.... since I've been doing the same thing for months. :lol:

The only thing the far left has vaporized is the weed they smoke everytime the give a speech.

[Vakten]

Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

Being a Moderate doesn't mean you lack core beliefs.

Being a Moderate only means you've developed your "own" core beliefs in absense of someone telling you what to believe.

I don't mind going along with the crowd every now in then, but sometimes I have to bail...

Case in point.

I can hang with Republicans when it comes to the war, and when it comes to kicking out the illegal aliens, but the second Republicans start talking Free Trade and sending more of our manufactoring sector overseas...I have to get up and find another group to hang out with.

I always feel like I'm being yelled at.

Republicans:"Come with us to fight tyranny in the Middle East!"
Me:OK!

Republicans:"Come with us to secure our southern border!"
Me:OK!

Republicans: "Lets send these jobs to China! We know you like our party because you've come THIS far with us!"
Me: Um...wait a damn minute...!

or....

Democrats: "Lets get out of these unfree trade agreements!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets clean up the environment!"
Me: OK!

Democrats: "Lets call this war another Vietnam!"
Me: ...sigh wtf...

Just examples...maybe not "good" examples rofl.

But there is always "something".

[Moracca]

JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

No, a moderate is whoever the network and newsprint media declare to be a moderate. Usually some cousin of Democrat. :wink:

[Alizard]

jamesp wrote: time will tell what America wants.. I doubt the DEMS on this board know either...




As you well know, elections tell what America wants which is why so many reactionaries make absurd posts like this one... some kind of attempt at cathartic therapy to avoid the reality of what America unequivocally said it wants..... and America said it loud and clear.

Try listening.

[Alizard]

milton friedman wrote: Alizard wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: [What did the Dem's learn?

How easy it is to vaporize the ground out from under republicans. All you have to do is give them what they want (a moderate in a leadership position) which completely takes away the repubs ability to call the democrats arrogant and disageeable, abusing their position of leadership (in other words, what the GOP did for the last decade).

The democrats use of simple logic and common sense to destroy all the GOP whining points makes me think they may participate in these forums.... since I've been doing the same thing for months. :lol:

The only thing the far left has vaporized is the weed they smoke everytime the give a speech.

That and the jobs of about 40 GOP (former) congressman.... I guess you aren't listening to America's voice either. Considering the message, not surprising...

The "far left" had nothing to do with this, it was the reactionary right's lies, corruption and shameless pandering to the evangelical agenda that finally made mainstream America so sick that they voted the beggars out in droves.

I'm sure you remember the election?

Or have you blocked it from your memory.....

[Moracca]

So, I guess that the Dems learn by nominating Alcee Hastings to be the House Intelligence Chairman? Note....Miss Hastings is an impeached judge.

[Ozzone]

Canada_Rocks wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

By core beliefs do you mean ignorance and bias?

There is no reason why a person can;t take a little from side A and a little from side B.

It is those who take sides that have no core beliefs. They need to leech their beliefs from others.

I agreed with JLB because of the way I see core beliefs. Core beliefs are primary major issues not specific small issues.

Examples of primary major issues are war, economy and taxes. A moderate will usually not have a core belief on those issues, but will vary on sides depending on the smaller specific issues inside them.

For example, take war. A definitive person to the left will be anti-war whereas a definitive person to the right will be pro-war. A moderate may be for or against war depending on the circumstances.

Take economy. A leftist will be for socialism or distribution of wealth and a rightist will be for capitalism and have no problem with class separation. A moderate will vary on sides depending on the specific issue of economy. A moderate may prefer socialism or capitalism depending on the issue. Take an issue like social security. A moderate may be for privatization or not whereas a leftist will be strongly against it and a rightist will be strongly for it.

Taxes. A leftist will be for higher taxes whereas a rightist will be for lower taxes. There's a lot of grey area between that moderates fill.

Bottom line, the far side of either party is a minority, albeit a very vocal one. Each side has strong beliefs in the core issues. Moderates don't have core beliefs because there's many sides within the core issues.

It isn't an issue of ignorance. Moderates aren't ignorant, just flexible in their beliefs depending on the circumstances.