Murtha Loses

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 06:40 PM

So, Murtha lost. That was unexpected, for me at least.

Is this because of his past, or because the other guy would be better?

Is this a sign of hard times to come for Dems? All these new guys come in and label themselves Dems, but they don't seem to all be in line with eachother. Will the Dems have trouble legislating with such a diversity among party members?

6SpeedTA95 · 11-16-2006, 06:47 PM

A lot of the new guys are conservative democrats

I'm glad this hoyer got voted in, murtha is an extremist and its good to see Pelosi unable to appoint her chronies to the position.

motivez · 11-16-2006, 06:49 PM

What You Heard About ‘Conservative Democrats’ Winning Was Wrong

I met dozens of Democrats running in 2006 -- no, not everyone, but most of them -- and I can't find much more than a couple who merit the label "conservative." That's not meant to be either criticism or praise. It's merely a statement of fact.

North Carolina Rep.-elect Heath Shuler surely qualifies as a culturally conservative Democrat, but the pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the exception, not the rule. Virtually all of the Democrats I interviewed were pro-choice, favored rolling back President Bush's tax cuts and sounded traditional Democratic themes on education, the environment and foreign policy.

RMNIXON · 11-16-2006, 06:50 PM

As I posted in the other thread: This election was not a liberal mandate!

ballz2wallz · 11-16-2006, 07:00 PM

Cause the ones in charge are liberal quacks, and some in the party realize this.

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What You Heard About ‘Conservative Democrats’ Winning Was Wrong

I don't think what we heard is wrong. Just look at the individual candidates, the Dems won many seats by choosing candidates were more conservative on issues than the Democratic leadership. They knew if they put up the status quo liberals they would not win the seats they needed to gain back contral. The leadership got their seats, but this is a pretty strong showing that they don't have their reps lined up to back them.

motivez · 11-16-2006, 07:07 PM

Care to define "status quo liberal"?

And not really, it's a stumbling block, but many of the new incoming freshmen were loyal to Hoyer because of his role in getting them elected.. Murtha didn't have that same loyalty from them.

ballz2wallz · 11-16-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Just look at the individual candidates, the Dems won many seats by choosing candidates were more conservative on issues than the Democratic leadership.

Not to mention many seats were gained by scandal-riddled Republicans. I doubt they would have taken control if it weren't for the scandals. It's a shame that's what they needed to win.

motivez · 11-16-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not to mention many seats were gained by scandal-riddled Republicans. I doubt they would have taken control if it weren't for the scandals. It's a shame that's what they needed to win.

Where's the "It's a shame the Republican party failed to be ethical, leading people not to trust them" ...

I like how there's some sort of "blame" put on the Democrats for winning seats from corrupted public officials, like "Oh those rascally Democratses, if they had just kept their traps shut about how corrupt the Republicans are they probably wouldn't have won! I can't believe they stooped so low!"

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Care to define "status quo liberal"?

And not really, it's a stumbling block, but many of the new incoming freshmen were loyal to Hoyer because of his role in getting them elected.. Murtha didn't have that same loyalty from them.

status quo liberal = liberals in Congress before the election?

ballz2wallz · 11-16-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Where's the "It's a shame the Republican party failed to be ethical, leading people not to trust them" ...

We call that 'the recent elections'

motivez · 11-16-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

status quo liberal = liberals in Congress before the election?

Yeah, that doesn't do much to flesh out the definition of "status quo liberal" ..

What exactly makes a liberal a "status quo" liberal?

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, that doesn't do much to flesh out the definition of "status quo liberal" ..

What exactly makes a liberal a "status quo" liberal?

The positions on issues the new winners have taken are less liberal than those taken by the Dems who have been around for awhile.

motivez · 11-16-2006, 07:23 PM

Exactly which recently elected people do you feel completely buck what the nationwide Democrat platform stands for?

A lot of them are "less liberal" on certain issues because they've been elected in districts that have been solidly Republican for a long time.. so that's to be expected.

However, as Roll Call points out, those who can be branded 'conservative' are the exception, rather than the rule..

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Exactly which recently elected people do you feel completely buck what the nationwide Democrat platform stands for?

A lot of them are "less liberal" on certain issues because they've been elected in districts that have been solidly Republican for a long time.. so that's to be expected.

However, as Roll Call points out, those who can be branded 'conservative' are the exception, rather than the rule..

It's shades of grey, not black or white. I don't think many of them deserve a label of conservative.

RMNIXON · 11-16-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

A lot of them are "less liberal" on certain issues because they've been elected in districts that have been solidly Republican for a long time.. so that's to be expected.

"Less Liberal"

I am dizzy with that spin!

Would anyone say someone is "less Republican?"

Moderate Democrat would be fair. You don't need to use that nasty "C" word!

motivez · 11-16-2006, 07:37 PM

Democrat / Republican are political parties.

Liberal / Conservative are descriptions to describe political philosophies.. so yes, "less liberal" is perfectly acceptable IMO.

Thorgrim · 11-16-2006, 08:34 PM

2/3rds of the incoming house members are progressives
NH01
NH02
IA02
IA01
NY19
NY20
PA07
PA08
PA04
MN01
WI08
KY03
FL22
CT02
CT05
CA11
AZ05
NY24
OH18
AZ08
CO07

In the Senate, our new members:
Sherrod Brown is a liberal
Whitehouse is a flaming liberal
Jon Tester is so liberal he wants to repeal the entire patriot act
Amy K in Minnesota is a liberal
Cardin is a liberal
Menendez is as partisan a Dem as you get
McCaskill wasn't the first choice of the DSCC because she was viewed as too liberal for Missouri
Jim Webb is being labeled by conservative websites as so populist from his latest post-campaign speeches he's actually a raging Marxist
Bob Casey knocked off the most conservative member in the Senate, and he is a populist whose only conservative value is pro-life, i guess you could say he's a slightly left of center moderate

All these victories by liberals yet there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE for any remotely liberal legislation...

RMNIXON · 11-16-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Democrat / Republican are political parties.

Liberal / Conservative are descriptions to describe political philosophies.. so yes, "less liberal" is perfectly acceptable IMO.

Nice try!

Your telling me you would describe someone as "less conservative?"

I don't buy that for a minute. But if that is what you require to proclaim that liberals won the election I give up.

RMNIXON · 11-16-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

All these victories by liberals yet there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE for any remotely liberal legislation...

Forgive me if I wait and see how this new majority votes. We saw the first vote today. Didn't look that progressive to me?