What will the Dems do now that they control Congress?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
A more complete listing of who's who from TPMmuckraker



TPMmuckraker


Things are pretty bad once the likesof TPMmuckraker start in on the Dems.

Why? TPM loves to go after Dems who arent ideologically pure, no?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Murtha wasn't pure enough for the anti-war darlings?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Lieberman doesn't have as much power as the Republicans claim. There's practically no way that they're retaking the Senate in '08 with that kind of hostile battlefield, so jumping ship would be ill-advised right now. He has a committee chair right now, and I doubt he'd throw it away to end up in the minority in '08, and in all likeleyhood kicked out of office in '12 (which he only kept because he promised to caucus with the Dems and due to the tacit support of most Senate Dems).

he doesnt have to threaten to jump ship. They will need him to pass legislation. He'll only jump ship if they do something really stupid, and in that case the GOP might well do ok in the Senate in '08, and hed likely win '12. I am assuming of course, that Iraq will be a less important issue in Conn in '12. Of course given his age, its not clear he would run in '12 anyway.
\

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Murtha wasn't pure enough for the anti-war darlings?

flip side of the George Will - McCain thingie. You have to be both pure on substantive issues, AND on governance issues. They love Murtha on Iraq, but they also know that lobbyist money stengthens the role of DLCers within the Dem party, and dilutes the power of "netroots" money. I was thinking more of the attack on Hoyer, though.

For nice controversies, how about Carville vs Dean. Dems could have taken MORE house seats, per Carville, if Dean had spent the money on close races, instead of on building organization. "Its like the Battle of Gettysburg, we let an opportunity for a bigger win slip away" Dean as George Meade. Karl Rove as Bobby Lee? Hillary as US Grant?

[lord of the mark]

oh, and congrats to Majority Leader designate, Steny Hoyer.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Murtha wasn't pure enough for the anti-war darlings?

See, that's the thing. Believe it or not, being anti-war is not the one defining characteristic of blogs like TPM. They actually stand for a wide variety of liberal-progressive positions. Murtha, who is a conservative Democrat, disagrees with them on many issues.

Also, look at Lieberman/Lamont. Certain people like to think that the left wing of the Democratic party tossed him out of the boat because he supported the war. Not so much. What he did was go on FOX news and say that it was unpatriotic of the Democrats to criticize the President and the war. You see the difference.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Admiral


Also, look at Lieberman/Lamont. Certain people like to think that the left wing of the Democratic party tossed him out of the boat because he supported the war. Not so much. What he did was go on FOX news and say that it was unpatriotic of the Democrats to criticize the President and the war. You see the difference.

I'm having a hard time seeing where this quote might have come from. I also would want to understand the context of any condemnation of Dems as being unpatriotic.

So not to be obstinate but can you point me to where Lieberman turned on his own calling them traitorous or at the minimum unpatriotic?

That being said if he did say such a thing then what was the mortal sin in the above? The fact that Lieberman went on Fox News? The fact that he supported the war? Or the fact that he urged commity with the administration?

[Dinner]

It appears Hoyer just won. Murtha has lost.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/congress.leaders.ap/index.html

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

I don't know what disgusts me more. The shere political idiocy of the repugs to play into this stereotype by putting Lott into a leadership roll or the idiots who believe the above stereotype to begin with.

The idiocy, sir, is all yours. Lott said it clear as day and that's why his own party forced him out. Of course a few years later he's back and the Republicans want to pretend the guy isn't just another white bigot elitest from the deep south.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

What's funny? Democrats actually have free fair and open debates among all of the members while the Republicans are the ones who annoint one person and then demand everyone elect him to the position or else. That's how a big tent party works as opposed to a top down small tent party. The leadership often doesn't get its way and the rank and file get to put their votes in as well.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I'm having a hard time seeing where this quote might have come from. I also would want to understand the context of any condemnation of Dems as being unpatriotic.

So not to be obstinate but can you point me to where Lieberman turned on his own calling them traitorous or at the minimum unpatriotic?

That being said if he did say such a thing then what was the mortal sin in the above? The fact that Lieberman went on Fox News? The fact that he supported the war? Or the fact that he urged commity with the administration?

Because there is a difference between a disagreeing with a position, and questioning someone's right to disagree. The piece de resistance is Lieberman's quote last December saying, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril." I apologize, in that he didn't outright say Democrats were unpatriotic, but the implication is that criticizing the president is harmful to national security. This is an embrace of the authoritarian talking points that certain Republicans use, and has no place in our discourse.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The idiocy, sir, is all yours. Lott said it clear as day and that's why his own party forced him out. Of course a few years later he's back and the Republicans want to pretend the guy isn't just another white bigot elitest from the deep south.

Clear as day ....Of course he did. No code words no inference but clear as day...Why its clearly evident in the quote that got him in trouble when he was eulogizing Strom Thurmon at his 100th birthday.

What was it again let me see?

I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

You got to admit its clear as day there. Almost as clear as the myriad of apologies including one so specific as to point out his true meaning of the code words he inferred above.

Segregation is a stain on our nation’s soul... Segregation and racism are immoral."

No Lott was witch hunted it is true but his history is dodgy enough that the charge stuck. And for that reason the GOP are idiots, but not because he was stupid enough to advocate segregation in this day and age.







Ohhh and this just in Hoyer winzzzz!!! Murtha loses.

[Dinner]

If someone is tired of Oggie's idiocy and misdirection then they can get the real scoop by listening to this NPR article published this morning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6495780

[Dinner]

The quoted remarks were in support of Senator Strom Thurman who ran for President in 1948 on a platform of segregation, white racial superiority, and anti-mesegination (because it would dilute the purity of white blood). Lott said his state voted for Thurman and America would have been a better place if everyone had voted for that white supremist piece of dog****.

Everyone needs to remember exactly where Trent Lott stands and not forget it.