Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

Our House majority was built on the Heath Shulers and Gene Taylors. Our party would do well to remember that.

Love him or hate him, the fact is that we're one more seat short of re-taking the House.

Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Shuler's one thing, but Gene Taylor voted for John McCain.  I know we need moderates, but really, what is a congressional majority if we have more Gene Taylors?

You need not only moderates - you need conservatives too. At least - moderate conservatives (that may be barely enough for majority). Remember - conservatives vastly outnumber liberals in the country. In addition - many Republicans congressmen didn't voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and, by present standards, he wasn't that bad. So what??  I am reasonably sure that Jacob Javits, Clifford Case and Nelson Rockefeller himself didn't, and i KNOW that some other didn't. And majority of Alabama's white  Democrats didn't vote for Obama. 70% of people in Taylor's district dislike Obama - whom must he follow - Obama or his voters? Again - he IS a REAL Democrat in his district

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.

1. Conservatives outnumber liberals.  And by much. It's not "some polls", it's consistent polling year after year, so this is a scientific fact..

2. For me ideology isn't important at all. It's because of "ideological demands" that i refuse to be member of any party consistently. The only one thing that matters to me - you either want to win elections, or you don't. If you do - as written by  someone above - i would gladly take House with 230 Democrats  (of which 70 would be DINOs) and 205 Republicans (or vice versa with DINOs substituted on RINOs) over permanent Democratic caucus with 180 out 180 being "pure progressives" (or vice versa for Republicans with "bona-fide conservatives" substituted). Then - what will be will be. If you equate Democratic party with "liberal party" and Republican with "conservative party" - fine, but i am neither liberal, nor conservative. So - then i don't have place in any and must look for 3rd party to reflect my interests...

3. Remind me - which party were Larry McDonald, John Rarick and Bob Stump (initially)? And, on the other side - Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Ogden Reid (initially) and Charles Whalen. And US was better governed then then now. BTW - the best American President (IMHO) - Franklin Roosevelt - worked very amicably with many conservative Democrats in his own party as well as with many Republicans as well. And got the results that was realistic. And what was unrealistic in his time (can you imagine DADT THEN? or even major Civil Rights laws?) was delayed until it became possible. He didn't conducted a "scorched earth" politics ("i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool") politics, which now is a trademark of BOTH political parties - Democrats as well as Republicans. If Obamacare is ahead of time - it must wait, if not - it will be accepted by majority not only of Democratic activists, but - majority of population.

4. I think - vast majority of people in Taylor's district will sharply disagree with you and call him "slightly liberal (for local tastes) Democrat". After all - he was defeated not for being "too conservative", but vice versa. And many who voted for Palazzo were Democrats))))

Uh, no.  It's not as simple as asking a bunch of people which box they can categorically be placed into.  To determine which direction the country leans overall, you'd have to closely look at electoral trends of the country, various polls on specific issues, demographics, statistics, etc.  Pretty much like what we do on this board.  This country has no left or right lean to it and is very much at the center.  And in case you haven't been paying attention, social conservatism is on a steady decline right now.  You definitely can't make that argument with any credibility.

If you don't understand the significance of ideology in politics, then I don't think you understand politics at all.  In order to have a political party with any credibility or influence at all, you need a set of ideology-based demands.  You need something to bring to the table.  If you constantly agree with your opponent on everything, then you don't have any political capital or legitimacy.  So if the Democratic Party focuses all its resources on people like Gene Taylor for "bipartisanship", then our supposed majority would be just as useless for us as a Republican majority and the Democrats wouldn't make the reforms they said they would... just like with health care.

Back in FDR's time, both parties were very moderate and the issues of the day were different than now.  Today's Democrats running the show have compromised over everything.  I fail to see how we're guilty for the brokenness in Washington.

Well, of course many Democrats voted for Palazzo.  This is Mississippi, after all.  Most Democrats in that district are actually very conservative Republicans on both social and economic issues.  Progressives didn't even turn out to vote in 2010.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well, Mr. Scott, i understand politics. Probably - much better then you are. I study it for 40 years (since i was a high school student in Moscow) I clearly understand importance of ideology in parliamentary democracy of European style, where there are 4-6 parties, and where the government is frequently coalitional. But i don't understand (and don't intend to) usage of similar criteria in a country ,where there are only 2 big political parties. It's too few for them to be strictly ideological(what gradually happens during last quarter century and reached unthincable level recently), and clever political leaders of Roosevelt-Kennedy time understood it quite well. They also understood (contrary to you) that politics is "an art of compromise", and  not (as i mentioned above) misuse of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Contrary to present leaders and many extreme "activists", who became to dominate BOTH political parties approximately since Reagan. It seems that it's you, who doesn't want to understandsuch simple statements, so my offer is to agree to disagree and ignore each other in the future. We will not come to any agreement  on BASIC principles, so - what for? Be in permanent minority with your "pristine party" if you want, you will only help Republicans with that, and they will gladly accept such your help. And leave all, who is not "pure" (it doesn't matter whether they are populist on economy and social conservatives or fiscal conservatives and social liberals) alone. You don't want to adapt to them and accept them? You will pay for that by forfeiting majority and power.

For the love of God.  I don't oppose compromise or bipartisanship, I oppose turning back on what you promised to your constituents for the mere gesture of bipartisanship, especially when you're dealing with another party that doesn't want to concede anything themselves.  But if you want to end this discussion and shun each other, then that's fine by me.