• 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!

Bob Kerrey bid causes left to lash out

Look I like Lieberman, but he left the Party because of the primary. They didn't kick him out and they ostracized him after he formed his own party. There is a difference between him and Kerrey.

He's a moderate former Democrat who's pretty much persona non-grata in the Democratic Party. Yes, he was effectively kicked out of the Democratic Party IN that primary in favor of a non-moderate; the state of Connecticut saw things another way and elected him anyway.

Which, I say again, is part of the point. The Democrats have purged their moderates in exactly the same way the Republicans have purged theirs.
 
He's a moderate former Democrat who's pretty much persona non-grata in the Democratic Party. Yes, he was effectively kicked out of the Democratic Party IN that primary in favor of a non-moderate; the state of Connecticut saw things another way and elected him anyway.

Which, I say again, is part of the point. The Democrats have purged their moderates in exactly the same way the Republicans have purged theirs.

Oh I agree. My point was Lieberman still could have won that primary, but choose to drop out and ran as an independent. That probably didn't help his standing with the Party. I always wondered if he had lost the primary and then ran as an independent would things have turned out differently.
 
Oh I agree. My point was Lieberman still could have won that primary, but choose to drop out and ran as an independent. That probably didn't help his standing with the Party. I always wondered if he had lost the primary and then ran as an independent would things have turned out differently.

I don't get what you're saying. He didn't drop out of the primary. He lost. Ned Lamont won it with 52% of the vote.
 
I don't get what you're saying. He didn't drop out of the primary. He lost. Ned Lamont won it with 52% of the vote.

You are right. I have not been able to multitask today with watching the NBA and typing on DP. In my mind I guess I went all the way up to the August primary but didn't think of the results.
 
Very interesting, Although a Dem I always liked Bob Kerry A U.S. Navy SEAL and a Mendal of Honor winner.........I wish him good luck bucking the nut case lefties in his party.


Bob Kerrey bid causes left to lash out - David Catanese - POLITICO.com


“Before leaving Nebraska, Bob Kerrey voted to deregulate Wall Street, voted for NAFTA, and voted for the Iraq war. Since leaving Nebraska, he’s supported cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, and lowering corporate tax rates. Kerrey will clearly not be a priority for those looking to support populist candidates in 2012 — and Chuck Hassebrook will likely get a lot of attention,” said PCCC co-founder Adam Green.
Democracy for America, Howard Dean’s Vermont-based political action committee, also indicated that Kerrey can’t count on their blessing in his attempt to replace conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who is retiring


Read more: Bob Kerrey bid causes left to lash out - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

I'm sorry, you said something about 'lashing out'???

Did you post the wrong article or something, because there's noting about 'lashing out'...
 
He's a moderate former Democrat who's pretty much persona non-grata in the Democratic Party. Yes, he was effectively kicked out of the Democratic Party IN that primary in favor of a non-moderate; the state of Connecticut saw things another way and elected him anyway.

Which, I say again, is part of the point. The Democrats have purged their moderates in exactly the same way the Republicans have purged theirs.

Lieberman sold out the Dems for Israel. He liked the war in Iraq and all the Neocon BS too much to be a Dem...all because Israel liked it too. That's why he supported McCain too. It was his choice, he "purged" himself.
 
Last edited:
It does not seem to me in this article that the democrats are willing to go middle of the road. Bob Kerry is a moderate and they hate him:confused:

it's certainly not just the Democrats. the Republicans have pilloried moderates like Olympia Snowe to the point that she has decided to quit.
 
Lieberman sold out the Dems for Israel. He liked the war in Iraq and all the Neocon BS too much to be a Dem...all because Israel liked it too. That's why he supported McCain too. It was his choice, he "purged" himself.

The Democrats of Connecticut disagree. They showed him the door.

Your post, of course, isn't exactly "moderate," so if you say "good riddance," then you, too help make my point for me.
 
It's very possible anyone opposed to Keystone XL (through the sandhills) will get the nod. Anyone know how Kerrey stands?

TransCanada
 
Last edited:
The comparison of Bob Kerrey to Joe Lieberman is fallacious. The Democrats can and do welcome moderates like Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson...in places like Nebraska, where electing a moderate is the best that Democrats can hope for. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, represents Connecticut. I don't blame the Democrats of Connecticut one bit for mounting a primary challenge against him. Connecticut is the type of state where a more liberal Democrat can get elected.
 
The comparison of Bob Kerrey to Joe Lieberman is fallacious. The Democrats can and do welcome moderates like Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson...in places like Nebraska, where electing a moderate is the best that Democrats can hope for. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, represents Connecticut. I don't blame the Democrats of Connecticut one bit for mounting a primary challenge against him. Connecticut is the type of state where a more liberal Democrat can get elected.

What you describe is not an example of a "fallacy." (And I never actually compared them, besides.)

It's interesting, though, that you appear to consider moderates to be necessary evils.
 
It's interesting, though, that you appear to consider moderates to be necessary evils.

Well sure. I'd rather have a moderate Democrat from Nebraska, who will at least occasionally provide an extra vote for progressive legislation, than a conservative Republican from Nebraska, who almost never will. I'd also rather have a liberal Democrat than a moderate Democrat, but that just isn't in the cards for a state like Nebraska.
 
Well sure. I'd rather have a moderate Democrat from Nebraska, who will at least occasionally provide an extra vote for progressive legislation, than a conservative Republican from Nebraska, who almost never will. I'd also rather have a liberal Democrat than a moderate Democrat, but that just isn't in the cards for a state like Nebraska.

Then this, too, helps make my point.
 
As I see it, it's all about the idea of the Median Voter. The empirical evidence is fairly clear that candidates who are near the ideological center of their constituency tend to do better in elections than those who are farther from the ideological center. So if we use William F. Buckley's rule and assume that Republicans want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable, and Democrats want to nominate the most liberal candidate who is electable, then it just makes sense for Democrats to support people like Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson in places like Nebraska. They are definitely to the left of Nebraska's ideological center, but not so far to the left that they are unelectable.

Conversely, it makes less sense for Democrats to nominate someone like Joe Lieberman. Connecticut's ideological center is FAR to the left of Nebraska's...and probably to the left of Lieberman himself. It would make much more sense for the Democrats to nominate a true liberal in Connecticut.
 
As I see it, it's all about the idea of the Median Voter. The empirical evidence is fairly clear that candidates who are near the ideological center of their constituency tend to do better in elections than those who are farther from the ideological center. So if we use William F. Buckley's rule and assume that Republicans want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable, and Democrats want to nominate the most liberal candidate who is electable, then it just makes sense for Democrats to support people like Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson in places like Nebraska. They are definitely to the left of Nebraska's ideological center, but not so far to the left that they are unelectable.

Conversely, it makes less sense for Democrats to nominate someone like Joe Lieberman. Connecticut's ideological center is FAR to the left of Nebraska's...and probably to the left of Lieberman himself. It would make much more sense for the Democrats to nominate a true liberal in Connecticut.

Well, I got it the first time you said it.

However, both the Republicans and the Democrats are currently more interested in immoderate ideological purity than electability. If they happen to get both, then it's more a function of happenstance than philosophy.
 
Embracing Conservatism is the only choice the Dems have, if they expect to retain any kind of power.

We are conservative now. O'bama (the Irish President) is a Conservative.
 
It does not seem to me in this article that the democrats are willing to go middle of the road. Bob Kerry is a moderate and they hate him:confused:

Obama and Clinton are/were moderates, and we tolerate them.
 
Leiberman is the way all people in congress should be. He is non partisan on many issues... If everyone in Congress was like him we would not have the problems we have now.

Great.... you Republicans should run 16 joe leiberman's for senate and another 435 for the house.... the world (or at least America) would indeed be a better place.
 
Back
Top Bottom