To the "Democrats" supporting Kean
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:03:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  To the "Democrats" supporting Kean
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: To the "Democrats" supporting Kean  (Read 2236 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2006, 03:11:27 PM »

I can't get that some of you are so blindly partisan that you actually think Democratic primary voters rather than the electorate as a whole should decide who gets a senate seat. It's complete bull and nonsense. If Lieberman actually wins (which right now seems very likely) he obviously wouldn't be a "sore loser". He would be the winner, with popular support. He is trying to represent the entire state, and not just the Democratic state party. There is nothing wrong with that.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2006, 03:15:32 PM »

The problem in the House is that no legislation can even be brought up for a vote now unless it has a majority support of the majority party. That pretty much kills any chance for bipartisan cooperation on most legislation. And it's a rule, I might add, that's been added under Republican leadership. When Democrats had the majority, legislation was proposed and passed despite being opposed by a majority of the Democrats.

So saying that both sides are equally to blame for a failure to be bipartisan is completely false, at least in the House. The minority truly is nearly powerless under the current rules.

Which is why they should be proposing co-sponsored, realistic legislation.  I could put together a piece of legislation and get it approved by the majority if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable legislation if all it did was add pork to their states and/or greases their wheels.  There are a lot more moderates on both sides of the aisle than one thinks.  You structure your legislation around that moderate axis, and you'll get your majority support.

But currently the Democrats would have to propose legislation which is supported by the majority of Republicans. The median Republican member of Congress, especially in the House, is quite conservative and not at all moderate.

And yes, the same is true for the Democrats, which is why basically any chance of bipartisan moderate legislation is zero until and unless that rule is lifted.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2006, 03:17:18 PM »

I can't get that some of you are so blindly partisan that you actually think Democratic primary voters rather than the electorate as a whole should decide who gets a senate seat. It's complete bull and nonsense. If Lieberman actually wins (which right now seems very likely) he obviously wouldn't be a "sore loser". He would be the winner, with popular support. He is trying to represent the entire state, and not just the Democratic state party. There is nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. If Lieberman loses I'll have no problem at all supporting Lamont and I think he'll be a fine Senator. I honestly don't care who wins the race all that much, but I do think Lieberman is a good Senator and the party and the nation are both better off with him in office than out of office.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2006, 03:41:08 PM »

I can't get that some of you are so blindly partisan that you actually think Democratic primary voters rather than the electorate as a whole should decide who gets a senate seat. It's complete bull and nonsense. If Lieberman actually wins (which right now seems very likely) he obviously wouldn't be a "sore loser". He would be the winner, with popular support. He is trying to represent the entire state, and not just the Democratic state party. There is nothing wrong with that.

You've made my day.  Smiley
Logged
Deano963
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,866


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2006, 03:53:25 PM »

  Minority parties, dispite the sub-par of the democrats over the past few years, still carry a lot of weight within the Congress and can get their legislation passed . . . IF . . . they work with others and find the common ground. 

LOL - no they can't! Not when you have hyper-partisans like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist as the majority leaders, who refuse to even let the opposition party's bills receive a simple up-or-down floor vote. It would be nice if those in the majority even allowed the minority to have a part in governing, but the reality is that they do not. Your statement is very idealistic and naive.

Logged
Conan
conan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2006, 04:11:00 PM »

Kean represents the states interest, not Menendez.  The concept of voting for someone who does not support your views or will not act in the states best interest just so some political party can gain power is as anal retentive as it can get.
That may be one of the most false conclusions made on this race. New Jerseyans agree with Menendez on all the issues. Everyone knows Kean couldnt win this on the issues and doesnt represent NJ interests.
Logged
Conan
conan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2006, 04:13:02 PM »

I've been very quiet about the New Jersey race.  Odd, since I'm living right across the Hudson right now.  I can honestly say I'm undecided.  I think Kean's dad did a fantastic job as governor, but that's no real reason to vote for him.  I also think Menendez is an idiot, the archetype of the corrupt urban Democrat.  I was saying this a year ago: If Corzine had appointed someone like Rob Andrews, Rush Holt, or Dick Codey, we wouldn't have had to worry about this race.  It's kind of a shame really, since by all accounts we should be winning this race hands down.

Basically, I don't like either candidate, but I'm very close to supporting Kean.  The ONLY thing that would make me support Menendez is because it could allow us to take control of the Senate.
You should look more deeply into the allegations. Most have been disproved. Yes, I too would have rathered a candidate who couldnt even be thought of as being corrupt.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2006, 04:13:30 PM »

If Cochran doesn't retire in 2008 I'll consider supporting/voting for him.  But in such an important time as now and with such a slimy Senator as Lott, even if he can bring home pork to the state, I can't support sending him back to Congress to embarass my state further.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.