Political Pedigree-- Stop it!

[Burgold]

The term RINO (Republican in Name Only) bothers me. When I think about it it bothers me a lot. Aren't Congressmen supposed to vote their conscience? Aren't they supposed to do what's best for the people they represent? This litmus test where people try to determine if you are Republican enough or whether your DNA is conservative enough is fundamentally wrong. It should be impossible for RINOs to exist. If everyone debated, voted, and analyzed on the basis of reason and facts then no issue would be Republican. It would be the health care issue. The energey issue. An American issue. To view things only through an ideological lens and judge or prejudge it based on how your words measure up on a political scoreboard is wrong.

This logic of purity has seeped too deeply into the mainstream. Heck, I saw a poster yesterday accuse another of being a paper Conservative because he didn't conform 100% of the time to the standard line, because he dared to judge a matter and voice an opinion that differed. That he engaged in reason and listened to the enemy.

The enemy?

That's another problem. Conservatives aren't my enemy. Liberals aren't the enemy within. Truth is, we're all or should be a continuum of beliefs, a scattershot of ideas formed on the basis of education and experience. No one should be a pure Liberal or a pure Conservative and demanding it is demanding failure as no ideology has the correct answer every time in every situation.

By now, I expect some are thinking... why's he only picking on us? Why's he only picking on the Conservatives? Well, us should be the U.S. not conservatives or liberals, but you're also right even if there is no equivalent term for RINO amongst Liberals or Dems. (It wouldn't work anyway, Who doesn't love that rascally Flintstone's pet Dino). Still, Democrats and liberals are guilty as well. I think it's in a different way.

Liberals have a bigger tent and so can't ever quite define what being liberal means. What they are guilty of is ignoring wrongs or rabidly defending wrongs of people who share their label. As no one is an ideologically pure conservative or liberal, no one should be excused from criticism when they are wrong or you disagree with them regardless of the letter attached to their name.

This thread is about pedigree. I say that we are all and we all should be mutts. This chest beating and blind loyalty is destructive. These power games where many actively hope for our government to fail and wish our lives to get worse is dumb. The strategy of trying to make it worse or try to create the illusion that things are more difficult than they are is a shame.

We live in hyperbolic times. Controversy has become a way of life. It'd be nice if we could travel a little way down the road of reason and put aside some of this RINO, Conservative, Liberal crap.

[PokerPacker]

long story short: Screw political parties.

[dockeryfan]

It is kind of amazing how Obama has been able to get legislation passed with basically no support from Republicans.

[Thiebear]

Wouldnt hurt my feelings if the took the (R)(D) and made everyone (I).
They think we are so stupid they hand out color coded paper at the polling to ensure you know who your voting for...

That Colon Powel argument used to piss me off (only 68% Republican)...
AND??? I agree with quite a few of his ideas... why do i have to pick the guy thats been a polician for 47years and changed sides 4x now because newsmax doesn't like him.

[SnyderShrugged]

The pedigree I am seeking isnt political, but it is principle

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Is there a way we can banish political parties? I would be all for it and just have people run on things they believe in.

[Kilmer17]

It is kind of amazing how Obama has been able to get legislation passed with basically no support from Republicans.

Why is that amazing? He had lockstep support from the Dems with a filibuster proof Senate.

And B- Joe Lieberman disagrees with you.

[dockeryfan]

Why is that amazing? He had lockstep support from the Dems with a filibuster proof Senate.

And B- Joe Lieberman disagrees with you.

ummm no.

If you think the amount of legislation that was able to be passed is anything but a monumental success, you simply don't follow politics. Or you think you do.

Most congress needs support from the other side to get anything done. They needed Sens Brown and Stowe to avoid the cumbersome "procedural test" vote for the Wall Street Reform Bill. I hope people really do take note that basically the entire Republican Party voted against this in the Senate.

[Kilmer17]

ummm no.

If you think the amount of legislation that was able to be passed is anything but a monumental success, you simply don't follow politics. Or you think you do.

Most congress needs support from the other side to get anything done. They needed Sens Brown and Stowe to avoid the cumbersome "procedural test" vote for the Wall Street Reform Bill. I hope people really do take note that basically the entire Republican Party voted against this in the Senate.

And that the entire Democratic Party voted for it.

Why is your vision limitted in that aspect?

[dockeryfan]

And that the entire Democratic Party voted for it.

Why is your vision limitted in that aspect?
Because it isn't the Democratic Party that has taken on the obstructionist role in the last 30 years.

The Republican party is very good at stalling.

[Mr. Sinister]

I'm pretty much fed up with politics in general. Seems like all everybody's doing is arguing at this point. I used to frequently watch CNN, and MSNBC, but it's been nothing but the same garbage everyday for the past 6 months. I'm burned out.

[SnyderShrugged]

Because it isn't the Democratic Party that has taken on the obstructionist role in the last 30 years.

The Republican party is very good at stalling.


If both parties had taken a more "obstructionist" role for the past few decades, we wouldnt be in the horrible economic mess that we are in today.

[Merlin Emrys]

The pedigree I am seeking isnt political, but it is principle

What's the difference? Political parties tout their principals is if they're 100% correct all the time.

[Ax]

I hope people really do take note that basically the entire Republican Party voted against this in the Senate.

It's safe to say that everybody knows this. November should answer how they feel about it.

The D's who sold their vote, will see if it was a wise investment. As will the R's, who took a political gamble, that they will be forgiven for their own transgressions, when they had control. Albeit not as firm of control as the D's enjoy now.

Which, makes the acquirement's up til now, anything but, amazing.

[SnyderShrugged]

What's the difference? Political parties tout their principals is if they're 100% correct all the time.

When was the last time a political party actually adhered to principles over abandoning them for political expediency?

Speaking principles does not equal living them

[Kilmer17]

Because it isn't the Democratic Party that has taken on the obstructionist role in the last 30 years.

The Republican party is very good at stalling.

So when Bush was in the WH, the Dems didnt vote against his Bills while the GOP voted for it?

And how can you claim the entire GOP voted against it, while also saying that Brown and Snowe supported it? WHich is it?

[Fergasun]

I don't think anyone here knows what they are talking about.
1) Political parties exist for a reason, to garner consensus amongst a wide swath of people. But practically speaking the parties only care about "winning", it's like a continuous game. I'm not just talking about "elections" but "votes". Like the Senate vote to extend unemployment benefits.
2) People who think the "RINO"s don't act with consensus for the party are nuts. If the Republicans really wanted to shut down the Senate, they could. But that would be politically stupid. So they use RINOs to strategically cross the aisle and keep things going. There's value in delaying legislation for a couple days here, and a couple days there... you pretty much stall the other side's agenda.

3) Whoever said Obama has done a masterful job getting legislation passed is an idiot. Congress passes legislation, not Obama. Since the Democrats have a near supermajority in the Senate, and a majority in the House, they pretty much have free will to do what they want.

4) Voters enabled the situation in 3. In fact one can say it was the GOP's ruling from 2004-2006 and 2006-2008 that angered the country so much into giving Democrats a national consensus in 2008-2010. I'm sure America collectively didn't think, "Hey, lets give the Democrats wholesale power!" but individually they all said, "We prefer Democrats"... and the cumulative effect is leftover today.

5) Sure Politicians are doing what's best for the "people they represent"... but that's not their constituents. The people they represent are the rich folk who funded their political campaigns. If you don't believe that is true, you haven't been paying attention. How come we got this massive stimulus bill passed, but there wasn't anything done to stimulate broadband or technology roll-out? There is so much we could do with the money we are spending, but right now it feels like political patronage at its worst.

6) If people come together and demand an "ethitcal, open and honest" party... which could only be done through a third party... well that will be a good start. Good luck with that. The political parties own the media. If you don't believe that you don't watch any news, and you don't pay attention to what gets reported in the media and what doesn't.

[Burgold]

3) Whoever said Obama has done a masterful job getting legislation passed is an idiot. Congress passes legislation, not Obama. Since the Democrats have a near supermajority in the Senate, and a majority in the House, they pretty much have free will to do what they want.
.

This might be a sidetrack to my own thread, but I am amazed at how inept and clumsy the Dems have been with the kind of majorities they had. Bush had a 51 member majority Senate and got everything he wanted pretty easily. Everything seems to be a deadly struggle, act of contortion, and an insane degree of compromises and payoffs. It's like the Democrats are their own opposition party (besides, being deathly afraid of any mistake they can't share the blame on)

I also agree that there is a use for political parties and even the intellectual shorthand that comes with it. Still, some or most of the purity statements and accusations about a person not being X enough and therefore a traitor is out of hand... especially, when it leaks into conversations on this level.

There shouldn't be any or many who are so invested in a political ideology that they are incapable of criticizing it or finding good in the other. There shouldn't be anyone sneering down their nose defining other ES posters as being faux conservatives. We do too much defining of others and too little constructive honest debate about the issues at hand.

In other words, we're letting them get away with it (define "them" as you please... rabble rouser media pundits, bloggers, politicians, etc.)

[Yusuf06]

Wouldnt hurt my feelings if the took the (R)(D) and made everyone (I).
They think we are so stupid they hand out color coded paper at the polling to ensure you know who your voting for...

That Colon Powel argument used to piss me off (only 68% Republican)...
AND??? I agree with quite a few of his ideas... why do i have to pick the guy thats been a polician for 47years and changed sides 4x now because newsmax doesn't like him.


Is there a way we can banish political parties? I would be all for it and just have people run on things they believe in.
There's already a solution to the problems you describe. Instant runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) or other proportional voting systems that allow the voter to choose a second choice candidate. Proportional voting is great primarily because it eliminates the "throwing away your vote" problem with voting for independents. Even better, it's cheaper since it also eliminates the need for a second runoff election. In theory, it also disadvantages the far right/left ideologues by making independent candidates viable alternatives and eliminating the need for candidates to do the typical hard left/right run in the primary in order to get support from their base.

Open primaries (http://www.openprimaries.org/), reforming the electoral college system (http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm), and the redistricting process (http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1389) are all long overdue as well.

[Fergasun]

Burgold,
I think comparing to Bush is apples-oranges. Remind me what Bush's domestic agenda was? Two big ones I recall are privitization of social security and comprehensive immigration reform. Social security privatization was a non-starter and immigration reform got kneecaped by both parties. The Bush tax cuts? I come from the place that says the other party will cooperate, but only enough that you own the issue. Certainly Democrats could've blocked the Bush tax cuts, right? But there was enough popular support for it to hurt them if they blocked it. So the Dem's voted just well enough in the Senate to pass that (I think, I'm only assuming that you are correct that Bush only had 51 GOP members). They allowed Bush to own it, calling it the "Bush tax cuts". 2006-2008 seems a little dicey to me... for instance given that the Congress was split from the President, it's hard for one party to completely lay something else at the other's feet. I think Congressional Republican's could've all voted against TARP, and TARP would've passed, making it the Democrat bank bailout... but since Bush signed it it would've come back on them as the Bush bank bailout.

It's hard to say since the media doesn't report things accurately. For instance with the recent unemployment extension. The GOP can claim that they are the fiscally responsible party because they voted against more borrowing, but they also get cover by the "RINOs" who broke the filibuster, in that it would be political suicide to completely block the unemployment extensions, right?

[deejaydana]

While I've voted for one party in the past (almost) exclusively, I'm completely done with both parties at this point. Where is the leadership in this country at this point? The present administration is as lacking as the last one in my mind.

[thebluefood]

long story short: Screw political parties.

http://cthomeblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/george-washington-picture.jpg
"I could've told you that."

[btfoom]

...

Liberals have a bigger tent and so can't ever quite define what being liberal means. What they are guilty of is ignoring wrongs or rabidly defending wrongs of people who share their label. As no one is an ideologically pure conservative or liberal, no one should be excused from criticism when they are wrong or you disagree with them regardless of the letter attached to their name.

....

That is YOUR problem. You see liberals as the more inclusive party because they align with your political views. IMHO, they are FAR more divisive - they include anyone as long as you agree with them.

At least just own up to the fact you are a die-hard liberal and be done with it. In your own words -- Stop It!

The idea that you see things clearly while the rest of us awful conservatives need to bash folks is wrong. It comes from both sides, both are equally wrong, and both sides are equally to blame, period.

[Teller]

I think part of the problem is that many people buy into the hardcore left and hardcore right doctrines of people like Olbermann and Limbaugh. I think those people draw hard ideological lines, and if you even stick a toe over the line to consider the opinion of those on the other side, they consider you a phony.

The fact is that both sides have some good ideas. Sure, most of us largely identify with one or the other. But IMHO, if you take a side, and believe that everything espoused by that side is right; then you are wrong.

I look at politics the way I look at faith. Sure, I believe the overwhelming majority of what my pastor has to say. Probably 95%. But if something strikes me as wrong, I can cast it aside, and not feel like less of a Christian. Why is it that if I cast aside 5% of my PARTY'S position, I'm a fake?

I don't respect people who take everything their side says at face value, and buy into it all, 100%. To me, your position is far more valuable, and respectable, if you can honestly consider all positions on an issue, and then choose the one that works for you. We don't all need to be registered independents, but independent thought is always a good thing.

[Burgold]

That is YOUR problem. You see liberals as the more inclusive party because they align with your political views. IMHO, they are FAR more divisive - they include anyone as long as you agree with them.

I've stated my philosophical dispositions many times on this board. It's not something I shy from or hide from. If you do then you can't deal with your biases which I try to.

That said, right now, the democratic party has a bigger tent and allows for more diversity... whether its the conservative red dog democrats or the hippy nutso libs. Republicanism, by appearances, is trying to constrain its image and voice.

But as I said in the opening, I expected this line of thought. The reason I picked on the Repubs more is two fold. Firstly, this thread was inspired by a very sad message board brawl by two esteemed ES posters one of which seemed determined to define the other as false and secondly because there is such a term as a RINO on one side, but there is no DINO. That doesn't mean that some libs aren't shouted down by their brethren for not towing and touting the party line, because that surely happens, but it does mean something that Republicans are so ready to discard their own... and if a person only votes with their party 91% of the time they are considered a Rino, a maverick or an outcast.

But to state it clearly again, I started this thread because I was disappointed and a little frustrated by how one conservative was treated and speaking to another because he was willing to consider arguments outside the party platform.

[Kilmer17]

"because there is such a term as a RINO on one side, but there is no DINO."

Once again, Joe Lieberman vehemently disagrees with you.

[Burgold]

"because there is such a term as a RINO on one side, but there is no DINO."

Once again, Joe Lieberman vehemently disagrees with you.

Not sure about that one. He was beaten in an election and decided to run as an independent. I think you do have a point that people were disappointed in him with his Iraq stance and gave him much grief, but I'm not sure if it's the same. OTOH, maybe it's worse because he felt forced to leave the party.

[Kilmer17]

How fast do you think I can find a dozen examples of the term DINO being used to describe less than far left politicians?

[Burgold]

Really? I don't think I've ever heard it, but I like being corrected esp. if I'm wrong. Go for it.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.timetogojoe.com/

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_de325c58-1e13-50e4-bd9e-9b6545a29ddd.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3501396

http://www.opednews.com/populum/showtags.php?tid=4097


http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2010/03/holdens_record_shows_hes_democ.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/tag/democrat+in+name+only/

[Kilmer17]

http://www.bluebluegrass.com/2010/04/27/renee-true-a-democrat-in-name-only/

http://www.mississippidemocrats.org/email-updates/2010/jamie-franks-bounds-was-a-democrat-in-name-only/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5473422/tennessees_4th_the_incumbency_of_a.html

http://harfobama.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/the-dagger-prouddemocrat-is-mike-hiob-a-dino-democrat-in-name-only/

[Burgold]

Hmmm.. 40 minutes. Must've taken a lot of diggin'. I would have bet sooner. :)

[Kilmer17]

Hmmm.. 40 minutes. Must've taken a lot of diggin'. I would have bet sooner. :)

My buddy sent me some good porn.

[Burgold]

At least one of those... the guy was called a dem in name only because he switched parties... seems fitting. However, in the spirit of this thread it's a pretty ridiculous and stupid term and an insult to Flinstone's fans everywhere.

[Fergasun]

Burgold,
You copied my misplaced anger thread... (re: Graham voting for Kagan).

Its easier to see the differences in Republicans because they are out of power and there are less of them. For instance, if they are filibustering it only takes a few to break the filibuster...

[Smoot Point Really]

Burgold, another subscriber to JournoList... :)

[NoCalMike]

Liberals who invaded the republican party? LOL.

Dude, the Dems have control all three branches and can't get anything meaningful passed, who exactly has infiltrated who?