The LAST thing we need is a liberal Sarah Palin.

[jenmito]

Palin is going around supporting conservative candidates against more moderate Repub. candidates. For every race she does this, the better for us Dems. She's dividing the Repub. party making us easier to conquer it. That is unless we try "purifying" OUR party, which could just help us lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I dislike Conservadems as much as the next person, but I'd rather see one of THEM over a Repub.!

[DireStrike]

1. Cool, let's just let the real sarah palin in

As long as she changes the letter next to her name to D, it doesn't matter. We will hold ALL the seats in the government then!

And then... uh.... um....

[jenmito]

3. She would NEVER change to a "D"-but Repubs. like Specter would and did...

and now look at him-he's helping the Dems. with possible cloture.

[DireStrike]

8. That's only because we have too many purists in the party.

If we silence the purists, Mrs. Palin will be welcome in our party. Think of the majority!

Arlen fucking Specter, lol. He is not providing any "help" that is necessary. He sure is stopping us from having EFCA though.

[jenmito]

9. No-it's because we have liberals and moderates and conservatives in our party-

all Dems. which represent THEIR states. Who's talking about "silencing the purists"? We would never do that.

Arlen Specter is more of a liberal than Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Landreau, etc.

[Oregone]

2. "I'd rather see one of THEM over a Repub"

And oldie but a resounding goodie....

What difference does it make anymore?

Its also a false binary choice....either accept a moderate Dem or you will get a Republican. It just might be worth the chance to get a real liberal

[jenmito]

4. It's an "oldie" because it's true. A Dem., in a conservative state, IS better than a REPUB.

in a conservative state. Unless you want us to be a tiny-tent party, that's how it HAS to be.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Its not always a binary choice but the way some of the districts are gerrymandered

and in at least a hand full of states it probably really is. I don't think these conservatives can be looked at as a lot in an effective fashion. I think the far bigger issue is having effective party discipline. Throughout history, once either party gets enough representation they will have a hand full of outliers. The biggest obstacle is more or less making sure everyone sticks together procedurally. We might not get dream legislation much but we could get productive and useful bills enacted very consistently without the threat of a couple of idiots going off the reservation.

I'm all for the primary process and getting as many in the caucus as possible that reflect our core values but to expect a majority and ideological purity is dreaming. A higher percentage is possible but the system and population will throw in at least a few centrist types as you capture a greater percentage of the legislature.

[provis99]

5. I have to admit,

I don't have any enthusiasm for Evan Bayh, but he's better than having Dan Burton as my Senator. Even a conservative Democrat is better than a Republican.

[jenmito]

7. Thank you...

another poster from Indiana said there's NO difference between Bayh and Lugar. I googled and then posted their voting records, and the poster told me to shove that DLC talk up my @$$ even though Bayh's record IS better than Lugar's. I'm glad you see the reality. In red states, the only choice is between a Conservadem and a Repub. I, living in NY, don't HAVE that problem.

[Clio the Leo]

10. exactly NT

[jenmito]

11. I'm glad you understood my sentence when I said she's "making us easier to conquer it" when

I meant, "making it easier for us to conquer..." :D

[Clio the Leo]

12. I was picking up what you were putting down. ;-) NT

[jenmito]

13. Hey...

I'm honored! :D

[mscuedawg]

14. Wouldnt that be an oxy moran???

:rofl: