[ScottW]

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

ScottW

[ScottW]

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

BTW....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...oped-headlines

http://tinyurl.com/yyaxr9

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned
him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

BTW....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...oped-headlines

http://tinyurl.com/yyaxr9

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
so years...

[ScottW]

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

ScottW wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
so years...


You does suck but that is beside the point.

Here's a bit dated analysis from an unbiased source
(I think) but I don't think things have changed
much and perhaps have gotten worse as the media fragments
and tries to cater to its "base" of listeners.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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

ScottW wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Why are openly conservative dems centrist?

Because your party has moved so far right that a conservative Democrat is a
"centrist" by Republican standards.

Maybe I should have asked, "What's it like to lose your mind to MSM?"

I does suck that the media has been so conservative for the past 20 or
so years...


You does suck but that is beside the point.

Insult noted.

Here's a bit dated analysis from an unbiased source
(I think) but I don't think things have changed
much and perhaps have gotten worse as the media fragments
and tries to cater to its "base" of listeners.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

I think this one was discussed here some time ago. IIRC nob originally
posted this here. I disagree that quoting think-tanks properly measures
or shows bias one way or another. Has this one been peer-reviewed yet?
It wasn't as of when nob posted it a few months ago. Here's one
response that I found:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0602a/u...mediabias.html

I posted a different study recently that polled journalists themselves
and their opinions. The one I posted showed that anti-business or
anti-business interests, or pro labor or pro liberal idea articles were
often not run, even at the (gasp) NYT. It has a much better methodology
than the severly flawed report that you posted IMO:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

Here are some other opinions dissenting with the myth of 'liberal
media bias':

http://quinnell.us/politics/media.html

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/intro.pdf

(Note the William Kristol quote at the bottom of page two)

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Article...Rail/1015.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 (an older one, but still
pertinent IMO)

I for one do not buy the old 'liberal media' saw, especially since one
of the founding fathers of American conservatism admits it's just BS.

But you and nob can quote this Stanford/UCLA 'study' as long and as
often as you want if it makes you feel good.:-)

[mrlefty]

I was on of the 12% of Texans who voted for Kinky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQKuk21Zxm8

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06?

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Look to Texas for outrageous gerrymandering.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".

I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.

I said "national," not "federal."

Stephen

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".

Stop it...you're depressing me with the hopelessness of it all.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:


Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

I don't know about Shh! but I think the reform must be a national effort
to avoid problems like that. Why volunteer to give up a seat or two?

Except the states draw their districts...not the feds.

Make that "simultaneous coordinated action by all the states".

I'm not for federalizing any more than necessary.

I said "national," not "federal."

I agree. This is a topic that the states cannot handle piecemeal.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06?

I hope not, and I doubt it. But if so, I was a republican before I was
a Dem. I cannot align myself with anti-science, anti-rights,
anti-environment, anti-...

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

Not really, as it's the republicans elsewhere.

I'd rather neither of them did. But both do. I'm not sure if the
chicken came before the egg though. Something would probably have to
happen at the Federal level.

[ScottW]

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

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

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06?

I hope not, and I doubt it. But if so, I was a republican before I was
a Dem. I cannot align myself with anti-science, anti-rights,
anti-environment, anti-...

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

Not really, as it's the republicans elsewhere.

I'd rather neither of them did. But both do. I'm not sure if the
chicken came before the egg though. Something would probably have to
happen at the Federal level.

You may be right...but I'm reluctant to reduce states rights and I think
the chances of federal action are even less than finally getting a state
referendum passed.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

snip
.

Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like
a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.

The final poll in the state showed 62% liked him and thought he was
doing a
fine job....and they still voted for the Dem to teach Bush and the
Repubs a
lesson. We New Englanders are like that, you know. :-)

Like that stupid? Bush doesn't give a **** about the party.

I think the lessons republicans learned is voting for
someone who doesn't represnet you cuz he's better than the other guy
isn't.




My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.

I suspect the Dems picked up a whole lot more like him. And even more
turned independent.

Since the democratic party has no soul, they only exist to be in
power..
it wouldn't take that many conservatives to flip over and make the dems
the conservative party.

The Dems used to be the conservative party.

The evangelicals started their republican takeover in the 1970s.

So the takeover of the democratic party started in '06?

I voted Libertarian in Ca, not that it mattered. We're gerrymandered
to insignificance.

I think all states are. I also think (as I've said) that's the root of
the problem.

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW
Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW
Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.
eF'in brilliant.

Even Daily Kos argued against the policy of dems in Ca to create safe
incumbent districts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/133630/220

Did you notice that it worked...again. No encumbent lost and no
district changed party hands...again. My state representative ran
unopposed. If it weren't for the initiatives...which are mostly
government sponsered now (wth is that?), there'd be no reason to vote
in Ca.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW
Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.

I'm not politicizing it anymore than you are. Delay is well known to be
the SOTA for this activity.

eF'in brilliant.

Sigh...


Even Daily Kos argued against the policy of dems in Ca to create safe
incumbent districts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/133630/220

Did you notice that it worked...again.

Of course I noticed. The district boundries are idiotic where I live.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Doesn't it **** you off that the dems (at least in Cal.) lead the effort
against gerrymandering reform?

ScottW
Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Go ahead and politicize the demise of democracy.

I'm not politicizing it anymore than you are.

BS... but even if you believe I am and you believe that is
wrong...doing it because I do is .....(fill in the blank).


Delay is well known to be
the SOTA for this activity.

Only thing Delay did that was really different was redraw districts
between census, ie, districts now aren't locked for 10 years
based on whoever happenned to be in power at that moment.

BTW...the courts didn't find anything really wrong in Texas
outside of 1 district. If Ca got scrutinized, I don't think
that would be the case at all.

Anyway, I freely admit both parties gerrymander.

But in Ca. the republican gov tried to create a system that
prevents gerrymandering and the dems killed it.
Clearly a situation of the haves opposing the have nots but it
is also one step further down the road of continuing to subert
the democratic process.
There was nothing in that proposal that tilted the system
the republican way as even the Kosters could see.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article

om,
Jenn wrote:


Of course the kind of that activity is the "late" Tom Delay.

Sorry, should read "...the KING of that kind...."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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. One party has
consistently been pro-choice.

Can you name that party in, say, two guesses?

[ScottW]

"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?

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?

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.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/


ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

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.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

[ScottW]

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.


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.

ScottW

[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?