Dugger

Last I knew, none of those people, with the possible exception of Jeffords, ever accused their party of being extremists.

Whitman literally wrote the book: It’s My Party Too

Oh, and Oliver: Speaking as a constituent, Landrieu’s no moderate.

Both are certainly in wide use, so the claim that Republicans are a big tent is hilarious to me. But then again, I remember just shortly after the election how Arlen Specter was smacked around by the right for insufficiently toeing the party line, BTW. Maybe if I ignored all current history, it would sound more plausible to me.

“but it s a much bigger tent than Republicans.”

Really? If I were a pro-war and pro-life Democrat I would be allowed to speak at the D convention? Be a likely nominee for a cabinet position with say Pres J Edwards? IMO, what is gradually happening is that all conservatives and rightie moderates are going R and all liberals and lefties moderates are going D. The difference may be that there are plenty more rightie moderates in power than leftie moderates. The R party is run by man reaching out to blacks and Hispanics; the D party by a shrill ideologue.

Breaux, Miller and a few Texas Blue Dogs were the last D moderates I can recall.

Dugger

Last I knew, none of those people, with the possible exception of Jeffords, ever accused their party of being extremists. Miller has (remember “I didn’t leave my party, my party left me”?).

Meanwhile, if any Democrat shows even an inkling of straying from liberal orthodoxy (Miller, Lieberman, Breaux), they are tarred and feathered as DINOs and, if not run out of the party, certainly shuttered off to the side all the while being constantly disparaged.

I happen to like Lieberman and Breaux. Miller is another thing. Also, I’ve heard many conservatives decry McCain for actually treating Democrats like they’re human, and Jeffords is certainly persona non grata with the Republicans.

Your argument that the GOP is a big tent party just doesn’t mesh with the facts. I’m not saying that Dems always get along (see DU types against the DLC), but it’s a much bigger tent than Republicans.

My point was that people like those I mentioned above are welcome in the Republican party despite the differences because we have a “big tent”. Meanwhile, if any Democrat shows even an inkling of straying from liberal orthodoxy (Miller, Lieberman, Breaux), they are tarred and feathered as DINOs and, if not run out of the party, certainly shuttered off to the side all the while being constantly disparaged.

neoconsrloopy,
All I can say is that Strawmen are neat! I could just as easily say that the real Democratic agenda is to socialize the nation’s economy while driving religion out of society and surrendering to the UN and be just as accurate, if not moreso. But that certainly doesn’t help the public debate, does it?

Zell is probably suffering from a little dementia. I feel sad for him, really. Noone legitimate takes him seriously. Sort of like Ferris.

Part of Republican rhetoric is making people feel like Democrats don’t share their values. Most people want to feel like they are part of the club, and by belittling Democrats as “out of the mainstream”, they try to make it “uncool” to be a Democrat. That’s how you see poor people with no health benefits voting for Cons because the Democrats are:

1. Gonna’ take our guns!!!
2. Gonna’ force us to have abortions!!!
3. Gonna’ force us to not believe in God!!!!
4. Gonna’ force us to marry a same-sex partner!!!!

The real Republican agenda, the one that takes the tax burden off of high wealth individuals and business and places it on the poor, is a non-starter with the public.

Lord knows I can’t imagine voting Republican, but the idea that Democrats can be trusted is insane.

Unless independent groups constantly keep their feet to the fire, Democratic politicans will sell them out in an instant.

The first thing you know, they will be passing Defense of Marriage acts and don’t ask don’t tell and welfare “reform” and voting for war in Iraq and censoring TV and the Internet and video games and bankruptcy bills and…

I know that sounds crazy and paranoid, but it’s just the way I feel.

Hell, I’m anti-abortion but pro-choice because I feel that if abortion were illegal, it would serve nothing but to force women to go underground for unsafe procedures.

The fact that people like Zell Miller are in that same group is what angers people like Dean, because Republicans snap up those people and parade them around as the “real Democrats” and portray the real Dems as somehow “out of the mainstream”. Yet Miller and others like him don’t realize that they are just tools of the Republicans. Republicans see Miller and say, “See! That’s what those commie Dummocraps should be!” I’ve always found it ironic that Miller speaks out against “vitriolic rhetoric” when he’s one of the biggest purveyors of it.

As for NARAL, I don’t really know much about it because I’m not real interested in abortion. If they succeed in making it the key issue in Roberts’ nomination, 75% of the country will yawn and not care anymore.

Remember this:

Abortion advocates stand by Kerry
Kerry says judges don’t have to agree with his stance
Thursday, May 20, 2004 Posted: 2:09 PM EDT (1809 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion-rights advocates are standing by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry despite his comments in an interview that he would be open to nominating anti-abortion judges.

…

Leaders of the abortion-rights movement said they will continue to support Kerry over President Bush, who supports abortion only in cases of rape or incest or when a woman’s life is endangered.

“There’s a huge difference between Bush and Kerry on choice and this is not going to undermine the pages-long documentation that Kerry is pro-choice,” said Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Kerry, said, “I’d like to hear him use language that is stronger.”
____________

If Kos lit up any more straw men he’d start a forrest fire…

Casey and Langevin belong to the most detrimental “single issues group” that is Democrats for Life… an organization that refused to endorse Kerry as the Democratic nominee.

So it is a bit ironic to be against an organization that is against a Democrats who refused to endorse the Democratic nominee….

For a pro-choice woman, the ideal outcome is a Democratic majority that will protect her rights

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/9/141338/3244/342#342

and for for perhaps the 20th time here I would like to point out to you that reality based evidence does not support this statement. Anti-choice Democrats do indeed vote to confirm judges like Janice Brown and, even worse ones like Leon Holmes.

Leon Holmes is a good example because, without the support of anti-choice Dems he would not have been confirmed. The vote, a little over a year ago, was 51-46. 5 Republicans voted against him, specifically Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Hutchinson# and Warner#.

Six Democrats voted for him Lincoln, Prior, Breaux, Landreiu, Miller and Ben Nelson. The fact of the matter is that anti-choice Democrats have no difficulty voting to confirm judges like Holmes. They have no problem voting for judges and legislation which would make the Catholic hierarchy proud.

#bolded because I wish to preempt any arguments about Sentors from very red states being just so helpless in the throes of their decision to vote for an overt misogynist

What are they supposed to do? Kick these people out for the sake of ideological purity?

I’m not even sure where to start on this one. Pro-choice group NARAL exhorts pro-choicers to lobby the Big Dog Liberal Blogs (i.e., Kos, etc.) to focus on abortion issues:
With the Roberts nomination front and center, choice is being talked about mor…

Though I tend to agree with your post in the big picture view, the reality is that NARAL is an organization dedicated to abortion rights, not electing Democrats. If they consider their best candidate in a race to be a Republican, so be it. The Democrats do not own NARAL’s vote, and if they can elect a pro-choice Senator that happens to be a Republican, for them, it is better than electing somebody that is not pro-choice.