An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Why Independent Voters Are Independent Voters: A Non-Role Model Senator
Right now the Demmies are coming under a lot of (justified) criticism for some of the ugly dealmaking that occurred with the big push to try and get health care reform, their addiction to earmarks and over the years some GOPers such as Senator John McCain and talk show hosts have blasted the Democrats on earmarks as well.
Now read THIS: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has reportedly now blocked ALL Obama nominations until he can get some earmarks. Some more on this here and here.
I’m sure McCain and talk radio hosts who have been blasting the Democrats for their demonstrably craven political behavior on this issue will be making Shelby an issue as well.
(Did I tell you that the Easter Bunny will visit my house this April?)
21 Responses to “Why Independent Voters Are Independent Voters: A Non-Role Model Senator”
A) It's not Demmies, it's Democrats.
B) it's not the Democrat Party, it's the Democratic Party.
Here is a list of Southern Republican Senators who are not sc*mb*gs:
-
Excellent headline. Two Supreme Court members want to retire. Will we be two members short until an election?
Hopefully both parties will condemn this sort of behavior regardless of whether there is a D or a R after their name. Both parties tend to turn a blind eye when it comes from within their own ranks..
Don: I realize that it is now an established blog traadition on the internet to try and find something to get angry about but, no, I WILL occassionally refer to the Democrats as Demmies because it is a term that dates back to 1970 when I interned on the West Haven City News while in college. No Democrats objected and some used it themselves. When someone uses the term “Democrat party” it is like NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA of little kids since Democrats do not want that term used — so Rush, Sean and some conservative bloggers use it, which sort of capsulizes what American partisan politics comes down to. So you'll see me use it and, no, it is not a term considered to be a slam just as I will keep using the term GOPers in some of my posts.
[...] Joe Gandelman: I’m sure McCain and talk radio hosts who have been blasting the Democrats for their demonstrably craven political behavior on this issue will be making Shelby an issue as well. [...]
And here is a VERY interesting Gallup poll from Wednesday showing the conservative and liberal breakdown by states.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125480/Ideology-Thre…
To me, the incredible thing is only in Washinton DC do more people identify themselves as liberal than conservative.
Write it off as just another not so fine example of the “DLS Syndrome” though the source this time is quite a surprise.
I wouldn't doubt it, that is unless the Democrat Min-jority forwards someone of the ilk of Scalia or Thomas.
Wow. Something we agree on. That's just what I was thinking as I read the news articles on it earlier this morning. This kind of thing is extortion, plain and simple, no matter who does it.
Those folks in Alabama must be pretty proud of their senator. But I bet you residents in Nebraska and Louisiana have got to be pretty ticked; they didn't get nearly as much when their senators were bribed.
That's fine…
From this day henceforth I shall call Republicans Repugs, none of my college buddies in the eighties had any problem with that label…
YAWNNN!!!
I shall call Republicans Repugs”
Fine, better than Dimmies and Reslugs.
yup.
Since falling back to pejoratives seem to have been given the 'thumbs up' here lately maybe “independents” should be referred to as “indiots”, too.
What happened to this place?.. And, Why?
I've never understood the objection to 'Democrat party' although I've heard enough complaints about it and I've observed, as Joe noted, the partisan Republicans who intentionally use it over the objections of some Democrats. Since I generally refrain from using names or labels that are objectionable to the people being named, I've avoided using it even though I don't understand what the problem is.
But this is actually the first time I've heard people object also to 'Demmies'. What is the perceived insult there? It appears to just be a cutesie shortened form of Democrats. Am I missing something?
To me, the short forms are clearly different than the alterations which carry obvious insults like “Dimmies”, “Dhimmies” or “Rethugs” or “Repugs”. Unless there's some insult in the plain old shortened forms that I'm not catching, I just don't get the complaints.
No matter what you call them, Democrats and Republicans are self-created societies and not the government of the United States. The problem is that they have passed state laws which exclude independent voters from being candidates for political office. Until independent voters can run for office in states where they cannot now run, we do not have free and open elections in the United States.
Dem dim Demmies aren't the only guilty ones.
I wonder how many of those that took offense to “Demmies” use “teabagger”?
I suspect Don Q. is testy as a number of people are, because the Dems aren't doing well lately, and there's a lack of “progress” that can satisfy or at least ameliorate the frustrations of the farther left.
(Ed Schultz to Dems, re. GOP: “Flip 'em the bird and Move On…”)
It's my understanding that the “teabaggers” called themselves Teabaggers until some fool pointed out to them the more interesting meaning of the term. We're just going with the flow…