Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements

[smoltchanov]

Yes, but i wouldn't call the most likely Republican candidate (Strickland) anymore more moderate then Gallegly. IMHO - he is even more conservative....

[smoltchanov]

Phillips is hardly the best candidate for this Democratic-leaning district. But most likely it will be dismantled during redistricting - that will piss no one and may even please most)))

[smoltchanov]

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.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

[smoltchanov]

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

[smoltchanov]

Looks like another potential gain for the Republcans in NC

With, as usual, a far-right candidate?)))). That would be utterly boring...

[smoltchanov]

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))))

[smoltchanov]

[
I used to think the same way you and MilesC56 do until I saw our Democratic majorities in action the first two years of Obama's presidency.  I feel quite differently now.  Having a majority is useless if you can't pass basic liberal priorities, like the Employee Free Choice Act, or an Obamacare with a public option, or a stimulus package big enough not only to bring the economy out of free fall but also into a full Main Street-tangible recovery.  

You get what's realistically possible. If majority of the people oppose "Obamacare with a public option" - you have to accept it, it's Democracy after all. Or, if you insist - bear with electoral consequences (as it was in 2010) and relegate yourself to permanent minority status at least until such politics becomes more popular and accepted. The same with stimulus and all other issues. In 2010 more people agreed with "solid" Republican opposition on these issues then supported, and expressed that at voting booth. What will 20112 show - we shall see.

[smoltchanov]

I'm glad you came around. I'd settle for 146 Democrats who would actually be willing to block a veto override of any absolutely terrible bill. Then if there was ever a sane President, there'd be no more absolutely terrible bills.

Sane and electable  President from a party which was only able to elect 146 House members? Impossible mathematically. You must be kidding)))

[smoltchanov]

I'm sure some of these extremist liberals supported North Carolina's egregious map, seeing as it got rid of some people they didn't like.

Really, I think Democrats need to start doing to the extremist liberals what Republicans are doing to moderates, booting them out. It's not as if the extreme ones are all that helpful to the party.

Right now different thing happens: extremists in both parties boot all other people (who dare to disagree with them on some issues) out . With very loud shouting cry after first "apostasy" -  "primary them!!!". And in place of "big tent" you have 2 big extremists groups "on the edges of political spectrum".. and glaring empty space between them....

[smoltchanov]

Exactly. I went on the DailyKos today defending Shuler and I seemed like a conservative Republican compared to the liberals attacking me

Yes. I simply can't understand how supposedly clever people (and political geeks to boot) may prefer to live next 20 years in dire minority only to "preserve pureness of politial views". Long ago one clever man gave a formula i subscribe since: Democrats must run the most liberal candidate who can win in given district, Republicans - the most conservative who can win. But IF the district is such that this "most liberal electable candidate" is to the right of Bobby Bright or even James Eastland - so be it, run such candidate! And if that "most conservative, but electable" candidate on Republican side is to the left of Jacob Javits - run him!!! After all it happens on local level (yes, i know that many races on that level are, technically, nonpartisan, but still - ...): Republicans ran Bloomberg for NYC mayor, and they (Republicans) didn't went to Hell, and Democrats until very recently had mayor in Florida (Jim Naugle) who supported Bush in 2000, McCain in 2008 and Santorum in 2012 - and world still exist.

P.S. I have accounts on both DKE and RRH, but don't comment anymore on either of them. The reason is exactly as in your case with only difference that on DKE it's "liberal Democrats", who play the attackers, and on RRH, it's, naturally, "conservative Republicans". The mirror images of each other)))))

[smoltchanov]

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.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

Im wondering if Republicans will beat the Democrats' near 62 year run of the House from 1932 to 1994.  Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of the last 18 years and if they hold the House for the rest of the decade it will be 24 out of 28 years. 

Surely - no. With Republican party "going right" with even greater speed then Democrats "go left" - no chance at all.

[smoltchanov]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

As  correctly stated by Miles - we deviated from original theme. I simply don't see the need to continue - for me the most important thing is to win the election, and, because the elections are conducted by district, you simply MUST run a candidate that suits the district (liberal in SF, conservative in rural Louisiana for example) in order to maximize your chances. All ideological criteria are secondary and much less important to me. That's obviously not so for you. So - there is no purpose to continue. Let's conclude with that and let's not (again using Miles's words) "highjack" the theme)))