I’m all for a big tent, but the rule has always been that if you’re inside the tent, you piss out of it. Bayh and his fellow-travelers (Landrieu, Nelson, etc.) have been pissing on the rug right in the middle of the tent.
And Lieberman lurks out around the tentstakes and tries to piss on anyone in the tent that he can.
Jeez, jayjay, now all of them are going to quit their posts. It will be all your fault! Politicians may be tough, but not tough enough to withstand this onslaught from left-wing blogs, random statements from anonymous Internet posters, and so on.
Lieberman is probably huddled in a corner somewhere sobbing right now.
Well, one can hope, anyway.
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, a liberal’s liberal if ever there was one, says:
And the Post’s Charles Lane:
From noted conservative bastion MSNBC:
From CBS News:
And from Hamlet:
Yes, whether this is damaging to Democrats is quite the puzzler, eh?
Of course it’s damaging to the Democrats, at least in the short term. The Democrats have always been their own worst enemies. The question for the Dems is whether they’re going to pull their thumbs out and take advantage of what positives the situation provides (see the aforementioned tent-pissing analogy) for a longer-term benefit.
My guess, based on previous behaviour: Ha ha! No.
Try reading my post again, this time for its substance. It was about you acting like december, posting whatever partisan crap is the latest thing that isn’t good for the Democrats.
Now, more importantly, would you rather Brickember or DeBricker?
I prefer Anti-Reeder, or Reeder Prime.
But no, you’ve still managed to miss the point. Is there any substance to the idea that Bayh’s abrupt departure was motivated by attacks from the left?
I don’t blame you for not wanting to discuss the question. It’s embarrassing. But not wanting to even acknowledge that the question exists? Sheesh.
Here is a take on it that losing Bayh is a good thing (or can be) for Democrats.
Distilled to its essence, though, that seems to say the same thing that the anonymous staffer said in my OP: a result of ideologically pure Democrats in the Senate’s minority party.
Reedicker? Brider? Maybe we can split the political difference and go with deBrickeeder. Redecker? If you’re happy joining their illustrious company, who am I to complain?
You mistake me for a Democrat apologist. I still find the question of why Bayh retired to be a non-Great Debate; which is why I went with “idle speculation” when I described it.
I think it is becoming clear that Obama’s economic policies are a disaster.
Not only are the democrat office holders scared, but they also fear grand juries and congressional inquiries …this is why Dodd and Kennedy are bowing out.
The key architects of this disaster (Geithner and Bernake) should also be in fear of indictments.
If things remain this bad next year (19+% unemeployment), I think there may well be calls for impeachment.:eek:
Well, “ideologically pure” is loaded language designed to sound worse than it has to be.
This is not about some Republican-like litmus test for Democrats. It is about getting through policies important to Democrats only to have some in their own party stymie those efforts. They are doing the work of the Republicans for them. The likes of Ben Nelson holding his own party over a barrel to extract free health care for his state in perpetuity? To say nothing of the likes of Lieberman. With friends like that who needs Republicans?
I think Democrats’ problem is trying to be somewhere in the middle and appease everyone. It leads to muddled bills that are no good and everyone hates. Republicans will never vote for them so why pander to them? At least try to make those who do vote for you happy.
Perhaps it means Dems become a minority party but I find it hard to see how that is worse than where we are now with them. Not like they managed to get much done as the majority (although to be fair with a stunning display of obstruction from Republicans the likes of which this country has never approached before).
:rolleyes:
There were calls for impeachment a week after he took office.
The thing with Bayh and his little Cerulean Canine crowd that annoys me is, you DON’T vote against your party on procedural votes! I don’t care if Bayh and Nelson and Landrieu and Lieberman want to vote against a health care reform bill. But if you want to call yourself a Democrat, you need to stick with leadership and at least allow it to come to the floor! Vote your conscience on the bill itself, but vote your party on procedurals, dammit!
Hell, there were direct calls for assassination before the election even happened. How many of those Palin rallies included people in the crowd reacting to her Barrow Bene Gesserit canto-respondu crap (“He pals around with terrorists!”) with “Kill him!”?
If Democrats aren’t going to make any sweeping changes, the only thing that really concerns me is keeping the Republicans from enacting regressive policies. But with Obama holding the veto pen, all it takes is 33%+1 solid Democratic votes in just one house of Congress to prevent a veto override.
You’re certainly entitled to your view. But given the fact that pretty much every single U.S. political commentary source has devoted at least one story, column, and/or columnist/blogger to the issue, I have to say that I disagree with the weight you’ve given to the issue.
Funny, I haven’t seen you start threads in GD about Shelby’s threatened filibuster, the latest Palin whining, or this administration’s embracing nuclear power, all of which were part of the 24 hour news cycle. Again, feel free to continue to further embrace your inner Reeder/december. Enjoy your “debate”.
I missed the chance to start a thread about the latest Palin whining, but I did comment in the existing thread:
Does that fit your preconception?
Good for you. I can get you a cookie if you like.
I don’t have preconceptions. I simply comment when you start your Reedecember threads of whatever is the latest anti-Democrat thing and watch as you trail off into irrelevancies. Such is life.
That measure of party discipline simply does not exist in the U.S.