Is this person a liberal?

[CTLawGuy]

The person has only four known stands on the issues:

1. The person opposes cutting the budget of the NEA.
2. The person opposes parental notification laws for abortion-seekers.
3. The person supports tougher mercury standards for water.
4. The person believes there should be racial aparthied.

Is this person, based on his known stands, a liberal, moderate or a conservative? Does it matter the importance of the issues relative to each other?

If this person were an incumbent Democratic Senator would you vote for him for the good of gaining a majority? (Note, position #4 was only revealed after the senator gave a shocking speech vehemently opposing a bill commemeorating the anniversary of the end of Aparthied in South Africa)

Or would you fight to replace him with another Democrat?

Would fighting to get rid of him be a "sign of weakness?"

[SteppingRazor]

1. Is his speech "vehemently opposing a bill..."

the only evidence that he supports racial apartheid?

[CTLawGuy]

2. in the speech he reveals he supports racial aparthied

this example is necessarily a bit silly to illustrate a point.

Does the importance of issues matter in determining who is a liberal or conservative?

[AverageJoe]

3. This person is a lunatic

Not for 1-3, of course, but a lunatic just the same. I'd vote for another Democrat in the primary, but if it was this nutjob against a slime ball republican in the general election and a congressional majority hung in the balance, I'd go with the nutball. That may not make me a good person, but politics has a way of twisting people up.

[MH1]

4. Disingenuous?

I don't actually know who you are talking about, but are you really referring to racial apartheid?

Or are you using that as a posited equivalence to another, more current issue? If so, you should identify that issue clearly, because many readers may not agree that a = b. (And some might be insulted that you equate the two. Depending of course, on what the issue really is.)

In answer to your question though, I would vote for the Democratic majority, because then I would have a lot less to worry about in actually meaningful legislation, than if the republicans stay in control. But I would denounce the speech (assuming we are really talking about racial apartheid here) and work quietly to create the conditions to unload this person from his/her seat.

If we are talking about the (b) that I think you are really talking about, than I totally would support the person in question, and I think you are wrong to equate it with apartheid.

[CTLawGuy]

5. What?

Think of what happened in South Africa until recently, that is what I mean.

I don't know what else you think aparthied could mean? Affirmative action? defninitely not.

This example is intentionally silly to make a point.

[SteppingRazor]

6. I think the above post is just asking you to say what you mean...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're talking about Joe Lieberman, and that you're saying that, just because Lieberman is progrssive on most things, his support for the war makes him unsupportable.

I think the above poster is correct in saying that you can't equate support for the war with racial apartheid. That said, I do see your point.

I disagree with the political purists who say a candidate must be entirely progressive. For starters, I think "political purity" is an oxymoron. There is nothing pure about politics. As for Joe, as long as he's not in a leadership position in the party or the senate, and his inclusion in the senate means a Democratic majority, I'm all for him.

Democratic control of the Senate is far more important than the personal politics of any individual member. Stopping the Bush agenda two years early in the election of 2006 means far, far more than re-electing one or two DINOs.

[MH1]

9. Thanks...

actually though I wasn't thinking of support for the war, but otherwise I think your post is spot on.

What I was thinking of is irrelevant; what is important is what the poster really means.

(I hate hypotheticals. can you tell?)

[LynneSin]

13. It's looking tough for us to find 6 seats to get the majority

We can't help the repukes out by ousting senators who hold safe seats. Hell, repukes are trying to do the same thing to Chafee and I hope they succeed because I think that makes RI open for a democratic pickup

[SteppingRazor]

16. Tough, but within the realm of possibilities...

We'd need to defend all of our seats, while picking up seats in Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Missouri and Montana.

I think we can definitely get Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Missouri and Montana will be tougher, but both are also in our favor.

Tennessee depends on who wins the GOP primary. Hopefully, the most-extreme GOPpers will show up for the primary, elected that crazy Van Hillary, and then he'll get killed in the general election. But if they elect Corker in the primary, we may be in trouble.

And then there's Rhode Island. Like you said, it would be nice if they did their own execution in the primary, but Chafee is vulnerable.

The point is, we CAN pick up 6 seats -- difficult, but not impossible. It would have been a lot less difficult, if only Mark Warner had run for Senate in Virginia instead of having loftier goals...

[LynneSin]

18. But that big "IF" factor is Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell and Diebold

Blackwell is running for governor in 2006 and he controls those voting machines. I'd go out on a limb more with states like Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee and Missouri than I would with Ohio

[MH1]

7. Okay, I'll play.

Then I go with my answer above, that I would put the Dem majority first but would try to unseat this person as soon as possible while retaining a safe Dem majority.

Because minorities will fare much, much better under a Dem-controlled Congress, even if one of those Dems is a racist.

However my answer does not apply necessarily to any other issue that you might swap out with the apartheid issue - I'd have to evaluate each combination of positions on its own merits. The laws of math (transitive, commutative, associative, whatever) can't be applied here.

As for what I was thinking of - it's irrelevant. Either you are innocent as you claim to be, then my thinking was off-base. Or you are not innocent, and you know exactly what I was thinking. But in that case it would be up to you to come forward with it. Anyway, if you really truly have no idea what I am talking about, then forget it, and my apologies for suggesting that you are being disingenuous.

[CTLawGuy]

8. i was not comparing the war in iraq to aparthied

The war is what I am thinking of. but the point is clearer because I used a more extreme issue than the war, and used more trivial liberal positions.


People who think Lieberman is a conservative aren't going to be sawyed by ADA ratings, because the war is such an IMPORTANT issue as to cancel out everything else. You can't treat all issues as equal. The war implicates the lives of millions of people, our national credibility, our budget, and the future stability of the middle east, which in turn affects our oil supply, which affects our economy in dire ways. That's why the war is so important.

[MH1]

10. Okay...

As I posted above, I actually did have something else in mind; based on something from another blog, which your post is suspiciously similar to. (So now I am relieved that you apparently are not pulling that bogus bullshit after all. My apologies for thinking ill of you.)

However if you were thinking Lieberman and his position on the war, that is a different thing. I would explore whether Lieberman could be unseated in a primary but only if I was sure that his Dem opponent could easily win the general. From what I've heard though, there really isn't much hope for getting rid of Lieberman but retaining the seat as a Dem. So I'd rather spend my time an money replacing R's in this cycle. When we get around 55-45 or better in our favor, then we can think about dumping Joe.

[Zodiak]

12. My problem with ADA ratings

is that the ratings are based on many procedural votes and amendments that don't have a chance in hell of passing or being seen by the body politic (AKA safe votes). If anything, ADA ratings serve to distinguish Democrats from Republicans, but not Democrats from each other.

According to ADA, Feinsten is more liberal than Boxer. That put up a red flag for me.

I have since come up with my own rating system that actualy reflects the bills that pass Congress as well as the appointment confirmations. In the end, Leiberman is not the worst we have, but he is the 7th worst, and from the most "blue" state. (Conrad from Deleware is right behind him).

He is NOT a liberal who just supports the war, although if someone were to cherry-pick Leiberman's votes, he can be made to look that way. He has made some horrible, horrible votes that undermined the party at crucial times, not to mention that he was one of the odious 7 that are responsible for giving Bush all the judges he wants in return for an empty promise to not "go nuclear". He is about as Republican as Chafee is Republican, but my calculations (Snowe is not as liberal as many on DU think, either).

I really wish that people would actualy look at Leibernman's votes instead of relying on others to spin the votes for them. Just look at his votes and decide for yourself.

I will leave my conclusion about what we should do with Leiberman for another thread. But regardless, I would like to see these thread have a little more substance and less blathering drivel on both sides.

Analyze the evidence, people! The facts are at least common ground we can agree on.

[LynneSin]

14. Conrad is from North Dakota - Carper is from Delaware

If every single democrat right now decided to come out and demand the end to the war - IT WILL NOT END

If we could bring 5 million to the streets of DC demanding the end of the war - IT WILL STILL NOT END

The only chance we have is to capture the majority which means we keep every democrat we have and find the ways to bring 6 more senators and 15 more representatives to the D column.

When that is done we still might not end the war but we do know that Reid and Pelosi support setting a timeline to get our troops out of there as soon as possible. As Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House respectively we know that they will bring the legislation to the floor to help achieve our goal. We may not get exactly what we want but I think they'll either get the issue or the republicans will filibuster which will help us even more in 2008.

[Zodiak]

17. Egads, you are right!

I meant Carper...good call.

Here is my full list. I encourage everyone else to make their own....use whatever criteria you want. Just be honest about how you score things, and surprises will follow.

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC
Levin (MI) 80
Dodd (CN) 70 - DLC
Leahy (VT) 70
Mikulski (MD) 70
Reed (RI) 70
Sarbanes (MD) 70
Shumer (NY) 70
Wyden (OR) 70
Clinton (NY) 65 - DLC
Obama (IL) 65
Bayh (IN) 60 - DLC
Biden (DE) 60
Dorgan (ND) 60 - DLC
Stabenow (MI) 60 - DLC
Byrd (WV) 50
Inouye (Hawaii) 50
Murray (WA) 50
Reid (NV) 50
Rockefeller (WV) 50
Baucus (MN) 45 - DLC
Bingaman (NM) 40
Cantwell (WA) 40 - DLC
Johnson (SD) 40 - DLC
Kohl (WI) 40 - DLC
Conrad (ND) 35 - DLC
Feinstein (CA) 35
Carper (DE) 30 - DLC
Leiberman (CT) 30 - DLC
Landrieu (LA) 20 - DLC
Lincoln(ARK) 20 - DLC
Nelson (FL) 20 - DLC
Salazar (CO) 20 - DLC
Pryor (ARK) 15 - DLC
Nelson (NE) 0 - DLC

As a good example, I never even knew Harkin was so progressive!! Conversely, I never knew Nelson of Nebraska was such a turn-coat until I made this list.

[LynneSin]

19. I live in Delaware and know my senators

Carper is also vice chair of the DLC. He's up for re-election and in our state no one bothers with primaries unfortunately. But Carper is a safe bet for re-election and I'm only 20minutes to an hour from some damn exciting house races in Pennsylvania.

I'll vote for Carper but after that why bother. Oh, and won't even bother with Mike Castle even though he's republican. He's extremely popular and more popular than Jesus in our state. Plus I think he would crossover and support a deadline for Iraq just like he has supported Choice & Environment. He's even lead the legislation to get funding back for Stem Cell research. I won't pull a lever for him but I'll do one small favor and spend my time elsewhere finding those 15 house seats

[Zodiak]

20. Well, I appreciate the correction

I have another problem with my list, as well.....something to do with another Senator being incorrectly placed in a stats (MN vs MT). I admit I did the names and states on the fly, and was surprised at how inept I am at guessing the two-letter abbreviations for all 50 states.

Here are the votes I used for criteria (I did this analysis a few months ago):

I took all of the votes from the 109th Congress and chose only the issues that met these criteria:

1. The bill or confirmation was not passed unanimously
2. The vote had to be for the bill's passage, not a token amendment. Or for the confirmation, not a cloture vote.
3. The neo-con corporate agenda must be served by the vote going one way or another (usually the bill's passage or the confirmation means Bush wins).

Here are the 11 issues (there were only 11 after the criteria above were used). Ten points were awarded for voting against the neocon agenda, zero for voting with it, 5 for abstaining (I had to make the distinction). There are other exceptions, noted below.

1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)

The number that follows the issue is an indication of how much the Democratic Senate as a whole agrees with liberal bloggers, basically.

Hee is the complete breakdown of Senators (score out of possible 110, scale to 100)...I allow for the senators the be off by one vote because I do not demand ideological purity..they get one betrayal for free).




I wanted to be fair in my analysis, but like I said, I wanted something more practical and consistent than ADA ratings.

I wish you luck with Carper. I really thingk we need to get off of the DLC teat, even in "safe" states. DLCers of the worst kind (like Carper, Leiberman, etc.) have enough numbers to scuttle every Demcoratic initiative, even if we have a majority. They cannot be trusted. This isn;t all of them...just the ones who fill the bottom of my list.

[LynneSin]

21. We do, but with the war on the line now isn't the best time

And with Biden now asking for a timeline for Iraq hopefully he can persuede both Carper and our only representative Mike Castle to join in. All three actually take Amtrak to DC together just about every morning. Their friendship is why Mike Castle has never tried running against Carper or Biden; he's the only republican that could feasibly give either a run for the money. But since he's really moderate-liberal I'm hoping he'll crossover on the Iraq votes

[meow2u3]

11. This person is a corporate lackey

It sounds to me like he or she embraces the values of multinational corporations.

[LynneSin]

15. Oh wow, I'm so glad to hear all the other democrats aren't corp. lackeys

Did you vote in 2004? Then you probably voted for someone who took money from corporations.

NEXT!