"GOP Civil War? Yeah, right

[SGdsn]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

 

[Modbert]

The Democrats argue over issues constantly, but you don't see them telling members of the party to agree with them or get out.

At this point in the game, if you're a Liberal, you really shouldn't be a Democrat. The majority of Democrats don't even see themselves as Liberal either.

Democrats have essentially become "Republican Lite"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Democrats argue over issues constantly, but you don't see them telling members of the party to agree with them or get out.

At this point in the game, if you're a Liberal, you really shouldn't be a Democrat. The majority of Democrats don't even see themselves as Liberal either.

Democrats have essentially become "Republican Lite"

The Democrats have never been "Republican Lite." The Democrats blew by the Republican Party when it came to big government 100 years ago when they embraced progressivism, suddenly leaving the Republicans to be the party of limited government. But now the Republican Party has become "Democrat lite."

 

[rightwinger]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Good question...lets look at recent history

Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president and was still allowed to keep his committee chairmanship

Hillary Clinton attacked Obama in the Dem primaries and was still selected Secretary of State

Over 30 Dems voted against the House healthcare bill. I don't see the Dems rallying against them

However, try running as a republican and supporting healthcare, gay rights or abortion

 

[SGdsn]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Good question...lets look at recent history

Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president and was still allowed to keep his committee chairmanship

Hillary Clinton attacked Obama in the Dem primaries and was still selected Secretary of State

Over 30 Dems voted against the House healthcare bill. I don't see the Dems rallying against them

However, try running as a republican and supporting healthcare, gay rights or abortion

Lieberman was allowed to keep his seat because the Democrats wanted a majority. It was a tactical decision. Obama picked Clinton to appease the other 50% of his base that initially supported her, though it was met by some derision from his initial supporters. Again, tactical decision. You don't see the Dems rallying against those thirty House Democrats because 1) it passed and 2) it's not campaign season yet.

Have any other examples?

 

[Annie]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

The 'civil war' isn't from the right, it's from the left. It's not necessarily as 'nice' as being kicked out of a party either:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/95071-answer-in-fla-attacks-tea-party.html#post1723828

 

[rightwinger]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Good question...lets look at recent history

Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president and was still allowed to keep his committee chairmanship

Hillary Clinton attacked Obama in the Dem primaries and was still selected Secretary of State

Over 30 Dems voted against the House healthcare bill. I don't see the Dems rallying against them

However, try running as a republican and supporting healthcare, gay rights or abortion

Lieberman was allowed to keep his seat because the Democrats wanted a majority. It was a tactical decision. Obama picked Clinton to appease the other 50% of his base that initially supported her, though it was met by some derision from his initial supporters. Again, tactical decision. You don't see the Dems rallying against those thirty House Democrats because 1) it passed and 2) it's not campaign season yet.

Have any other examples?

Exactly my point..

When republicans toss electable candidates for breaches of doctrine they are giving away seats. When you have a 40% majority, you can't afford to give away seats like they did in NY23.
Politics is all about being "tactical'. You build alliances with those who may not agree with you.
Meanwhile, republicans clean house of those who do not totally agree on guns, abortion, healthcare and gays. They are unable to distinguish between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. And they will pay the price

 

[Bfgrn]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Unlike the purity party that devours their own, attacks any Republican that doesn't march in ideological lock step on each and every issue...and replaces them with a right wing parrot...

Conformity and marching in lock step is NOT moderation...thus, the moderate Republican NOW calls himself Democrat...

 

[Zoom-boing]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Unlike the purity party that devours their own, attacks any Republican that doesn't march in ideological lock step on each and every issue...and replaces them with a right wing parrot...

Conformity and marching in lock step is NOT moderation...thus, the moderate Republican NOW calls himself Democrat...

Specter was never a Republican, he just had an 'R' next to his name.

 

[Bfgrn]

Specter was never a Republican, he just had an 'R' next to his name.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Specter was never a Republican, he just had an 'R' next to his name.

Democrats just have more history and experience with pulling diverse interests together. But when they veer too far left, they lose the moderate vote just like when the GOP veers to far right, THEY lose the moderates.

That makes the number one chore of ALL the party faithful to convince moderates that the other guys have swung too far to the extreme.

Right now the GOP is trying to figure out of they can survive better without moderates or without the far right who have no interest in moderation.

 

[Qball]

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Then the same goes for Republicans. The OP's point is, Democrats are just as ruthless when it comes to members of their party who aren't lock-step with the party platform as Republicans. The only difference is Democrats call it diversity when it's them, but call it a "civil war" when it's Republicans.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Then the same goes for Republicans. The OP's point is, Democrats are just as ruthless when it comes to members of their party who aren't lock-step with the party platform as Republicans. The only difference is Democrats call it diversity when it's them, but call it a "civil war" when it's Republicans.

Tell you what - you can call it all "even-steven" and just the typical political "in-fighting" but the evidence suggests something more.

Less than a year after being the party's nominee for vice-president of the United States, a politician goes out of her way to campaign against a member of her party. Looks like more than just the typical in-fighting to me.

 

[Jay Canuck]

A Florida Republican Becomes a Right-Wing Target
New York Times - Kate Zernike - ‎Nov 15, 2009‎
Charlie Crist, with his wife, Carole, drew protests at a Republican barbecue this month. It was in the glow of a new day in politics last February when Mr.​

 

[Jay Canuck]

[SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The GOP's looming (media) civil war[/SIZE]
Link
Excerpt:
It's not easy to flip a congressional district that's been Republican since the late 1800s, but after being willingly hijacked by the right-wing media -- after getting steamrolled by Fox News' embrace of third-party handjob Doug Hoffman -- Republicans managed to hand NY-23 to Democrats last week. And they did it just in time for the newly elected Democrat to help (barely) push health care reform through the House of Representatives during Saturday night's historic vote. Doug Hoffman was, first and foremost, a media creation, which means we are entering a very new and different realm in American politics. We're entering a sort of Fox News Era where media outlets -- where alleged news organizations -- essentially co-sponsor political campaigns. We've moved well beyond the time when Fox News, for instance, leaned right and gave conservative candidates more air-time and tossed them lots of softball questions. We're now watching unfold a political reality where Fox News literally selects candidates and then markets them through Election Day. There's a reason Hoffman described Glenn Beck as his "mentor" and pledged his "sacred honor" to uphold the "9 Principles and 12 Values" of Beck's 9/12 Project. There's a reason Sean Hannity wanted to "declare" Hoffman the election winner, and why Fox News' on-screen graphic read "Conservative Revolution?" when Hoffman was being interviewed (i.e. prematurely crowned) by Hannity on the eve of Election Day. Hoffman's outsider bid, originally opposed by the Republican Party, was a media production, plain and simple, which means his loss was a media loss, as well.

 

[blastoff]

It's just a darn shame that 99% of Dimocrats give the rest of them a bad name.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Then the same goes for Republicans. The OP's point is, Democrats are just as ruthless when it comes to members of their party who aren't lock-step with the party platform as Republicans. The only difference is Democrats call it diversity when it's them, but call it a "civil war" when it's Republicans.

What part of "at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats" confuses you?

Republicans like Specter or Scozzafava that choose to represent the GOP and define themselves as Republican are NOT ALLOWED to BE Republicans unless they drink every drop of the right wing koolaid...

It is not THEIR choice to BE Republicans...it's the lock-step party's choice...

 

[Navy1960]

I had the chance to read the thread title and besides the your side eats their young fight that we all at one time or the other engage in, what struck me was the mention of civil war. So I decided to do a little brushing up on the subject as I like to read history anyway, then I ran across this article.

The United States Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American History, claiming more lives than The American Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, The War against Switzerland, The War of 1812, and the Vietnam War combined. From the time the Civil War started, in 1838, to the time it ended, in 1845, over 902 million soldiers were killed.
Facts about The Civil War

Actual Number;

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Casualties In The Civil War

I thought it was telling that the information just so blantently wrong and repeated in article many times it brought to mind that mentioning the words civil war in a debate to describe the disagreements between factions within a party might be somewhat off base as well. Take for example the John Edwards affiar, I don't think it would be easy to find many Democrats that would express a desire for his return to the national stage anytime soon. However contrast that to S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford who when compared to Lindsey Grahm in S.C. according to the S.C. Republicans seems like a saint. So there's a little of that on both sides, perhaps that just means that political figures at least those career ones that sit there for years and do NOTHING but collect a check really are not so well meaning after all Republican or Democrat and maybe for real change we might just need to start voting for the person rather than the party, now theres an idea.

 

[Oldandtired]

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Then the same goes for Republicans. The OP's point is, Democrats are just as ruthless when it comes to members of their party who aren't lock-step with the party platform as Republicans. The only difference is Democrats call it diversity when it's them, but call it a "civil war" when it's Republicans.

What part of "at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats" confuses you?

Republicans like Specter or Scozzafava that choose to represent the GOP and define themselves as Republican are NOT ALLOWED to BE Republicans unless they drink every drop of the right wing koolaid...

It is not THEIR choice to BE Republicans...it's the lock-step party's choice...

Noooo...they are not allowed to run on republican platforms to win, and then vote agianst what they ran on. There is a difference you know.

Like the 23rd...that democrat stumped AGAINST the healthcare bill in an effort to win the election.....and 12 hours after he was sworn in he voted for the bill.

Yeah...sure...thats what works well....glad you approve of such behavior.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"GOP Civil War"? Yeah, right

"I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives."

Rand Paul Mocks Newt Gingrich​

Yeah.....nothin', at ALL, like a Civil War.

​