• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe to Retire

Re: Senator Olympia Snowe to retire

soccerboy22 said:
Well, this is an interesting turn of events. She says it is because of increased partisan divide in the Senate, but it will put a wrench in the GOP's attempt to try and gain a majority in the Senate since Maine is a solidly blue state. However, it is safe to say this news came as a surprise.
Click to expand...

She's always pretty much been a Democrat anyway. Just like Scott Brown from MA. Honestly, I would have rather seen those two accept the reality of their situations and join the Democratic Party rather than remain as RINO's.
 
haymarket said:
It is telling that the posters here saying good things about the Senator are normally identified as progressives and Democrats while those being snarky and outright mean to the Senator are conservatives, libertarians and those who are found voting Republican.

And we are accused of being partisan!?!?!?!? Amazing.
Click to expand...

Well, I am a conservative...but not a Republican...but I don't think what I said about her was either snarky or mean. It was simply my perception of her.

But you are correct in one thing: She was more useful for the Democrats than she was for the Republicans...hence the good things y'all are saying about her.
 
Mycroft said:
Even if the Democrats take her seat, I think it's a good thing that she goes. One thing that nobody likes is a Senator that cannot be trusted. One day she'll side with Democrats, the next day she'll side with the Republican.

I echo the other poster who said: Good Riddance!
Click to expand...


so much for voting for that which will be in the best interest of the USA

there are those who would instead have the politicians vote party first, the nation second

any wonder why we are in this bad place politically. the best government money can buy
 
PerfectStorm said:
So are you saying conservatives should blindly support a politician just because he or she has an "R" behind the name?
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, unless they would prefer a senator with a "D" behind the name, which oddly was the case in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010.
 
Re: Senator Olympia Snowe to retire

Tigger said:
She's always pretty much been a Democrat anyway. Just like Scott Brown from MA. Honestly, I would have rather seen those two accept the reality of their situations and join the Democratic Party rather than remain as RINO's.
Click to expand...

She was one of the last Republicans in the Senate. Now all that remain are RINOs
 
haymarket said:
What I am saying is it is telling that the posters here saying good things about the Senator are normally identified as progressives and Democrats while those being snarky and outright mean to the Senator are conservatives, libertarians and those who are found voting Republican.

And we are accused of being partisan!?!?!?!? Amazing.
Click to expand...

Well, after all she didn't pass the 'purity' test, she didn't sign their de facto leader Grover Norquist's pledge. :lol:
 
Snowe's primary purpose in the Senate was to provide "bi-partisan" media cover to left leaning bills and ideas.

The problem is that the Dems have moved so far left that conservatives dont want to be seen as complicit in Republican compromises that usually arent for the good of conservative ideas. The conservative base of the GOP (the part that actually makes campaigns work) would rather candidates stand up for ideals than capitulate in the name of getting half of a crappy bill that they didnt want any of in the first place.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Snowe's primary purpose in the Senate was to provide "bi-partisan" media cover to left leaning bills and ideas.

The problem is that the Dems have moved so far left that conservatives dont want to be seen as complicit in Republican compromises that usually arent for the good of conservative ideas. The conservative base of the GOP (the part that actually makes campaigns work) would rather candidates stand up for ideals than capitulate in the name of getting half of a crappy bill that they didnt want any of in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is a two way street. The GOP has moved so far to the right that people that don't pass the purity test aren't considered part of the party. Snowe is a dying kind in both parties. A moderate.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Snowe's primary purpose in the Senate was to provide "bi-partisan" media cover to left leaning bills and ideas.

The problem is that the Dems have moved so far left that conservatives dont want to be seen as complicit in Republican compromises that usually arent for the good of conservative ideas. The conservative base of the GOP (the part that actually makes campaigns work) would rather candidates stand up for ideals than capitulate in the name of getting half of a crappy bill that they didnt want any of in the first place.
Click to expand...

let's examine how this actually worked out for the republican party

the very blue state of maine repeatedly elected a republican to one of its two senate seats

that senator decides to abandon that elected office rather than "stand up for ideals" of the republican party, meaning place the objectives of the GOP ahead of the interests of the USA

and as a result, the republicans have lost a seat which helped them maintain a majority

nice going, GOP [/s]
 
justabubba said:
let's examine how this actually worked out for the republican party

the very blue state of maine repeatedly elected a republican to one of its two senate seats

that senator decides to abandon that elected office rather than "stand up for ideals" of the republican party, meaning place the objectives of the GOP ahead of the interests of the USA

and as a result, the republicans have lost a seat which helped them maintain a majority

nice going, GOP [/s]
Click to expand...

Ummm...

A couple of points:

The objectives of the GOP are not necessarily in contention with the interests of the USA. Unless you are mostly liberal like Snowe was.

We are talking about the Senate here. The GOP do not have a majority...the Democrats do.

Now, this development will make it more difficult for the GOP to achieve their GOAL of getting the majority, but other than that, I don't see things changing much with her departure.
 
Mycroft said:
Ummm...

Now, this development will make it more difficult for the GOP to achieve their GOAL of getting the majority, but other than that, I don't see things changing much with her departure.
Click to expand...

Not really. If a real republican wins in Maine, the GOP will be better off since Snowe was a RINO.

Plus, it's been obvious, having a simple majority means little, you need 60 or influence on one or two from the other side.
 
Hikertrash said:
Not really. If a real republican wins in Maine, the GOP will be better off since Snowe was a RINO.

Plus, it's been obvious, having a simple majority means little, you need 60 or influence on one or two from the other side.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the article it'll be difficult for a real Republican to win the seat...that it's more likely to go to a Democrat. But we can always hope, eh?

Also, there are benefits to having a majority even if you don't have 60 seats...like control of committees and such.
 
PerfectStorm said:
So are you saying conservatives should blindly support a politician just because he or she has an "R" behind the name?
Click to expand...

I think he's finding it incredulous that people expect politicians to blindly follow party line.
 
I have no problem with her retiring. She was nothing more than a Social Conservative Democrat. Sure it will hurt the GOP's chances for the Senate. But right now the GOP has a bigger problem. Which some are trying to straighten out. That would be an identity crisis. IMO that is!
 
OpportunityCost said:
Snowe's primary purpose in the Senate was to provide "bi-partisan" media cover to left leaning bills and ideas.

The problem is that the Dems have moved so far left that conservatives dont want to be seen as complicit in Republican compromises that usually arent for the good of conservative ideas. The conservative base of the GOP (the part that actually makes campaigns work) would rather candidates stand up for ideals than capitulate in the name of getting half of a crappy bill that they didnt want any of in the first place.
Click to expand...

You may see it that way but from my leftist perspective the left in our government have slid right due to the fact that the right have slid even further right than in any modern times.
 
haymarket said:
It is telling that the posters here saying good things about the Senator are normally identified as progressives and Democrats while those being snarky and outright mean to the Senator are conservatives, libertarians and those who are found voting Republican.
Click to expand...

Why should I be nice to her exactly? What do I agree with her on? Anything? What has she voted on that I would of approved of? What has she said that I don't find repulsive? What has she supported that I would support? How are her motivations something that I should find desirable? What is there for me not to hate?

And I don't vote republican, thank you. Though I will be voting for Ron Paul regardless.

And we are accused of being partisan!?!?!?!? Amazing.
Click to expand...

I have never accused a democrat of that, but I have accused them of far worse.
 
poweRob said:
You may see it that way but from my leftist perspective the left in our government have slid right due to the fact that the right have slid even further right than in any modern times.
Click to expand...

I can refute that with two words--domestic spending.

Kool aid tasting pretty sweet?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I can refute that with two words--domestic spending.

Kool aid tasting pretty sweet?
Click to expand...

And here I had thought you were a respectful non-troll up 'till now.
 
poweRob said:
You may see it that way but from my leftist perspective the left in our government have slid right due to the fact that the right have slid even further right than in any modern times.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Cons and the "tea baggers" may not have been particularly effective in government or even getting elected, but they have been surprisingly effective in moving the entire political spectrum to the right. Our "liberals" are to the right of most Canadian and Brittish conservatives. We have very few real liberals in US politics, at least at the federal level.
 
poweRob said:
And here I had thought you were a respectful non-troll up 'till now.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break, our domestic spending is so far left its not funny. We have implemented full on socialism in the last 40 50 years. You can argue that it isnt but its certainly further left than it used to be. To argue differently is just being blind.

If you want to discuss our foreign policy you have a case, but domestic? No way.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes. The Cons and the "tea baggers" may not have been particularly effective in government or even getting elected, but they have been surprisingly effective in moving the entire political spectrum to the right. Our "liberals" are to the right of most Canadian and Brittish conservatives. We have very few real liberals in US politics, at least at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Ok...did you miss the 2010 election cycle?
I hate using wikipedia but this is pretty cut and dried stuff so: United States elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OpportunityCost said:
Gimme a break, our domestic spending is so far left its not funny. We have implemented full on socialism in the last 40 50 years. You can argue that it isnt but its certainly further left than it used to be. To argue differently is just being blind.

If you want to discuss our foreign policy you have a case, but domestic? No way.
Click to expand...

Yet Nixon era created the EPA, clean water act, clean air act and so forth... his administration was to the left of this one in that respect.

All you are doing is creating a false identity by saying spending=left. That's not how it actually works.
 
I love how the liberals are all defending Snowe....I guess that tells anyone that didn't already know where she stood.

j-mac
 
poweRob said:
Yet Nixon era created the EPA, clean water act, clean air act and so forth... his administration was to the left of this one in that respect.

All you are doing is creating a false identity by saying spending=left. That's not how it actually works.
Click to expand...

Nor is that a true identity. Nixon would be opposing the EPA of today if he were in office. EPA today over reaches and enacts regulations without legislation. What it routinely does as a matter of practice to property owners should not be legal.

Pollution was beginning to get really bad in the early 70s. Environmental concerns were beginning to take shape, now, environmental concerns are trumping everything else.

The paradigm about spending has changed as well. GOP spends money, Dems REALLY spend money, conservatives would like it to stop if they are fiscal cons, as most of the Tea Party wave from 2010 was and is. Old party establishment GOPers like Murkowksy, Snowe, Collins, McCain and then you have Specter, Bennet, Martinez...oh wait we primaried their asses for the exact thought shift Im talking about.

We cannot spend money the way this country has become used to---because we do not have it and its irressponsible to expect the next generation to pay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom