You bloody well should be for defending this administration.

Aren’t you just a bit embarrasssed by this statement. I mean you talk about governing and minimum wage, etc. and yet out creeps the real motivation behind it all (what we pretend doctors call BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome). I would be ashamed.

Agree w/Dana some other place. Good new look. Font size could be fine-tuned up.

Dugger, Back in town

The problem with this view is that it is the Democratic Party’s failure to be more liberal and less Republican-lite that prevents it from garnering the broad support necessary to become the majority party.

If we did have John Edwards in the White House and nominal Democrats in the majority of both houses, as the writer you quote suggests, a significant number of the nominal Democrats would join with the Republicans to sabotage any major program of the Edwards administration. Universal health care, addressing poverty, tax increases, etc., are not going to be supported by at least ten of the current Democratic senators. Just check their votes on the bankruptcy legislation for a ready reference.

Senator Lieberman is pretty much of a liberal Democrat on every issue but a couple

The opposite is true. Lieberman makes a handful of “show” votes in order to qualify as a “liberal” on a few scorecards. He is and always has been a wholly-owned hack of corporate America. Moreover, when any issue of any importance is being debated or decided, Lieberman is never on the liberal side.

But my bigger point is on the theme change: I can’t object to theme changes, ’cause I’ve been working on my own (which, of course, you should check, every day! ), but this one is very difficult to read. the links in the near right sidebar are so faint that they can barely be read (although I can still see that I’m not blogrolled! ), as is the new “Recent Comments” feature.

Whatever font you are using in the “Leave a Reply” box is bigger, better and easier to read than either the sent copy or your original.

You might actually do better if the near right sidebar had a black background; that might make it more interesting graphically.

So much for your “idealogical purity”.

Nowadays, my only litmus test is which party leader the prospective candidate would vote for should they be elected to congress. Right now, if the answer is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – that s good enough for me.

Yes, you’re for Big Picture Politics… except for when you’re not.

Think, Then Think Again

If Sen. Schumer and the DSCC endorse and support an independent Joe Lieberman in the event that Ned Lamont wins the Democratic primary they are going to have hell on their hands. I don t expect the DC establishment to be big boosters of Lamont s candidacy (and I ve made clear I wish progressive activists would bring the energy from that race to, you know, the rest of the progressive infrastructure) but for the DSCC to not support the Democratic candidate for Senate in a state?

That s the sign of a party who actively wants to destroy itself.

Actually, it’s a sign of a party that understands “big picture politics. Schumer would support Lieberman b/c at the end of the day, Lieberman will for the “correct” leadership. Lieberman outpolls Ned even as an idependent…
So, which is it? Ideological purity or “big picture politics”?

Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

We can have big arguments about the makeup of the party idealogically when its Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and President Clinton/Edwards/Warner/Whoever.

And then we can forget about the Senate or House wanting to investigate the White House. Or do you think we’ll somehow see more oversight with Dems controlling everything?

BTW, nice layout, but I do miss the old banner…