[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..

BTW, I do not think that's a fair statement.

One party has consistently been for civil rights.

Not exactly...do you forget the Southern democrats
filibuster against the Civil Rights Amendment?

Recent history. That was where the republican party was born. bushie's
"I'm from the party of Lincoln" was accurate, but far more recently
they're the party of Nixon and McCarthy.

Or the original Lincoln-Douglas debates on slavery?

Which side did the democrat take in that debate?

One party has
consistently been pro-choice.

Are you telling me there are no pro-life democrats?.

No I'm not.

Party is the key word, not candidate or Congressman, individual etc.

I do not believe the Dems have ever had an anti choice platform. If I'm
wrong sue me.

Seems to me the democratic party is very willing
to embrace candidates that can get elected
even though they won't agree with the party on
these core issues.

So they should be kicked out unless they conform to every plank in a
platform?

Ask Lieberman.

That wasn't the party that kicked him out. It was the voters in his
state. The voters also kicked out Lincoln Chaffee, when he agreed with
the voters more often than he agreed with the republicans. And the
voters overwhelmingly liked him. Again, not the party. The republicans
actually supported Chaffee when he wasn't to their template. Maybe
that's what hurt him...

You need to disengage the party from the voters.

So Chaffee wasn't really a republican after all. Nor are any
republicans who disagree with Bolton, for example.

It's gonna be tough for both parties now. Nobody conforms strictly
enough to belong.

No...its tough for voters....nobody adheres to their principle they run
a campaign on.

I guess they'll have to listen to the candidates now.

Wasn't it the republicans that said 'all politics is local' in an
attempt to distance national policies and platforms from local races?
It didn't work, BTW...

You obviously want a 'republicans are this and Democrats are that'
scenario. I get the strong impression from things that you've said that
you think the Dems not having everybody in a single lock-step is a bad
thing.

I like it that way. It balances out the extremes. Harry Reid is not
pro-choice. Should he only be allowed in the republican party?