Well, I agree with your argument that the party out of power moves more toward the other party's positions when they get into power (although this did not happen with Bush — he moved us farther to the right), but I don't necessarily accept your premise that the reason for the shift is that Obama realized getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. I think it's more that realities of power politics in Washington, D.C., make it very difficult to do that, and he's picking his battles. Plus, we have a signed agreement with Iraq to be out of there completely by– whatever date it is, I forget– August 2011? So he can diddle with the interim dates, but not the final one.

So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

Well, from my pov, of course, I hope they do.

Secondly, I find it very hard to believe that a long-time independently-minded senator like Lieberman would write a blank check to the Democratic party and agree to support their bill unconditionally before it was even written, but if you have evidence that that’s what he agreed to I’d reconsider. It’s more likely that he agreed to support the effort for health care reform in general, but in the end the bill turned out more left that he expected.

Thirdly, I’m feeling less-than-motivated to continue arguing for what could be considered a defense of the Republican party. That’s not my intent. So, let me try to make a concession: Yes, the rhetoric on the right has been more extreme than on the left. But it seems to me it’s mostly just that: a rhetorical shift, not as much an ideological shift. In that sense, I would agree with Andrew that this is common among parties out of power, just as the far left did under Bush. The “get out of Iraq now” and “Bush lied” crowd was very loud, but when one of their own gets into power it is revealed that his actually policy decisions are more nuanced as he understands that getting out of Iraq now would be a disaster. So it remains to be seen what that means for the ideology of the Republican party. If the party nominates Palin in 2012, I'll eat my words, but I don’t believe that will happen.

On this lefty site, as uttered by lefties (when they aren't just clueless and spouting words and phrases they know nothing about, like terms of logical fallacies they routinely misuse, while committing all manner of such fallacies) –

“far right” = anybody to the right of Barbara Boxer or the many lefties on this site

“Bonus” distance points (to rightward) if they criticize weak or bogus Republicans

Any and all likely answers are unflattering, if not downright disgusting.

And it doesn't matter that Lieberman didn't promise specifically to support “a public option.” He committed to supporting the Democrats' legislation on health care reform. He didn't say, “except if it has a public option.” He didn't say, “No health care reform at all is better than health care reform with a public option.” Furthermore, the point is moot anyway because Lieberman also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not even have a public option.

The thread is about the Republican party pushing out moderates. As Kathy implied, the race itself is not that interesting; what Kathy (almost wrote “she”, sorry Kathy:)) found interesting was the Republican reaction. I won't speak for Kathy, but it seems to me Kathy would agree with me that the thread is not so much about Dede but about the perceived exclusions of moderates in the GOP.

While I mentioned that I agree with Kathy's general point, I think pointing out a double-standard is relevant and is not a hijack. My comment does relate to the post as a whole, it specifically relates to the quote from Andrew:

“What we’re seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls.”

When one considers examples of the Democratic party doing the same, it calls that logic into question. Therefore, I stand by my comment as relevant to the current topic.

thanks.
dr.e

He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.

Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?

Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.

This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.

It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”

He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.

Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?

Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.

This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.

It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”

He lost in the primary, adelinesdad. The Democratic voters of Connecticut picked Ned Lamont over him. It was his decision to then run as an independent and win by splitting the vote. I don't understand what Democrats in Congress have to do with that.

Hows that for a not-so-veiled threat?

Gosh, AD, I guess I just can't muster up any sympathy for poor old Joe. I mean, can we remember for a moment that the condition he agreed to in exchange for Harry Reid letting him keep his chair of Homeland Security even though he had campaigned for John McCain, *and* said things about Obama that were just despicable lies was that he would be loyal to the Democrats at least on alternate weekends? The whole reason for not removing him from one of the most powerful committee chairmanships in the Senate was that the Democrats needed his 60th vote on health care. He knew that. He used it to keep his committee assignment.

This is not principled call to conscience we're talking about here, AD. Joe Lieberman is simply not comparable to ANY other lawmaker in Congress, Democrat OR Republican, liberal OR conservative OR centrist. Lieberman is a man with absolutely no sense of loyalty and not an ounce of integrity or honesty. He's a snake, AD. He's a back-stabber. There is no good faith in anything he does. You just cannot compare him to Olympia Snowe or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. They're not back-stabbers. They don't promise something really important to get what they want in the moment and then turn back on their promise, probably never having had any intention of keeping it.

It's really bewildering to me why so many conservatives don't seem to get this — given how praiseworthy they all said former Pres. Bush was for his “loyalty.”